Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 December	8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Hero[edit]

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

Kept in 2006, when we had very low standards--the arguments was basically "it exists, and so do other articles"

No third party sources in article, but a Google news search shows the usual local mentions, and a umber of articles about a murder of an employee during a 2016 robbery, which is not significant for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article lacks the criteria to meet the WP:NOR standard. It does not flesh out how it is a franchise with subsequent locations, and additional source information. Perhaps a reboot of the article would be in order if more information were produced. Ventric (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there's plenty of news coverage of crimes at these shops [1] [2], and occasional stories about store openings/closings [3], but I don't see about the restaurant chain itself. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not a lot of coverage but in addition to the crime stories and 15 y.o. shot to death at one, I'm finding some notoriety about their Roman Burger and EC3's dad being an owner of Mr. Hero franchises. They seem to be fairly well known and influential as a regional chain. What is a buttered cheesesteak? Does Cleveland Rock? Stories such as [this https://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2016/05/23/mr-hero-is-the-scourge-of-clevelands-professional-athletes] one lead me to conclude that it is culturally relevant to Northeast Ohioans and should be kept. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks sufficient coverage as a chain. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I count about 115 branches. Easily significant enough within its market for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After a Google/Google News search, I don't believe this meets GNG - that one clevescene.com article was all the coverage I found of the company as a company and not just a place where a crime happened. It doesn't really matter how many of them there are if no one's giving them coverage, and that the owner of some of the company's franchises (not even the owner of the company, just some of the franchises) is the father of a famous person falls squarely under WP:NOTINHERITED. Egsan Bacon (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ,,, Spam about an ordinary business isn't what we are here for. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per power~enwiki. Passing mentions do not meet WP:GNG Operator873^CONNECT 00:24, 15 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Stratford[edit]

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

Delete: as thoroughly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 22:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article mentions a failed audition for a role we can be pretty sure the person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert -- good one. LOL.
Delete - I was initially tempted to suggest keeping the article for her role as Lucy van Pelt in A Charlie Brown Christmas; however, WP:NACTOR specifically says "significant roles in multiple notable films." Unfortunately, Stratford does not meet notability guidelines. Operator873^CONNECT 00:33, 15 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, no prejudice against a merger or title change. (non-admin closure) The overwhelming community consensus here is against total extermination, with a few suggesting that any problem with the current state of affair could be solved through a merger, title change, or good ol' editing. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weinstein effect[edit]

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

Nothing but a WP:NEO Majority of sources in this article have no mention of a Weinstein effect Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with #MeToo, possibly under a third, better title (~~Sexual harassment in the workplace in the United States?~~). A lot of people have been affected by this social trend (online and off), and this affects the perception of the next allegedly horny villain. Weinstein is one of them, but not the first, last or most famous. Seems undue to tie him so strongly to these other four thousand or so scandals, especially if it's not caught on as the common title in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the text here is pretty good and should be preserved, but the article's function is largely redundant to the #MeToo article as well as others, such as the poorly-named "2017 Westminster sexual scandals" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT to, drumroll please, .......... Harvey Weinstein. Quis separabit? 23:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful content into an appropriate article. This is a neologism without adequate WP:RS. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep There's a merge request in progress and that's the proper venue for this.LM2000 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While my keep here is procedural, I opposed the merge proposal on Me too. As others have said, the Weinstein effect is independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – "Weinstein effect" is clearly defined as the reaction the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations. In fact, the article's title could be "Reactions to the Harvey Weinstein sexual abuse allegations", since all of the articles cited frame recent the allegations as a reaction to the allegations against Weinstein (and if they don't they shouldn't be included). However, I think the title "Weinstein effect" fulfills WP:CONCISE, though I'd be open to alternatives. ^Falling_Gravity 01:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Weinstein effect" is how the sources refer to it, so it's the appropriate title. SilkTork (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added a reference to this CBS News article to clarify the definition in the article. ^Falling_Gravity 02:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Weinstein effect, described in its article intro as "a phenomenon where allegations of sexual harassment and assault against celebrities are publicized and trigger responses from companies and institutions." The #MeToo, is a hashtag intended to build awareness without being coerced into names or details. Its spread is a result of topic #1, but it's a more specific movement. And some instances of #MeToo revelations might related to some instances of the Weinstein effect, but they're definitely not the same movements. So I'm against moving it to the #MeToo article page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnimeDisneylover95 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was doubtful at first, but after reading the article and the sources, this is an obvious keep. Well sourced, and within Wikipedia notability guidelines. This is a different topic to the Me Too article, as it is dealing with a different aspect of the Weinstein incident. Indeed, Me Too is one aspect of the Weinstein effect, but it's not the only one. The Weinstein effect is a reflective, encyclopedic and documented study of the effect of the revelation of Weinstein's sexual abuse, which will have a lasting impact on society. Me Too is a social media event, which many of us shared or took part in, and has a social interest, but is not on the same scale or as encyclopedic or notable as the topic of this article. I think both are worth having, though for different reasons. If there was to be any merging (which I don't think is necessary or useful), it would be Me Too to be merged with the Weinstein effect, as an example of that effect. SilkTork (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As both deletion and merge discussions are taking place here I have put this page as the target on the Merge tag. SilkTork (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete: Just noticed that the article has recently been turned into a largely bullet-point list that changes the paragraph-style presentation of previous versions. This really changes the utility of the article into something even more similar to the list we had over at the MeToo article. This is essentially double work.70.112.229.80 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A bit iffy in that I think it needs a bit of work (and maybe, just maybe) a rename. But it does seem to be notable. and refers to events that do not just involve Weinstein.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we have to merge the content onto one of those two articles, we should keep "Weinstein effect". Anywikiuser (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep iirc, MeToo exploded due to the Weinstein effect, not the other way around, so merging to there would not work. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Silence Breakers That's the title I couldn't think of for my merge vote above. It's perfect, I reckon. And Al Franken and the National Reckoning would make a damn fine band name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Silence Breakers would expand the scope of the article to all of 2017 and even back into 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with that. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to the idea, but that would really change the article's nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And #MeToo's, too. But not in a destructive way. Just all the essentially same stories under one common umbrella term of the year, then trimmed of redundancies. Potentially libelous lists as these should be watched closely, and it's twice as hard to watch two things closely. If we fit those cheeky Brits in, it could be thrice as simple and straightforward, while naming every single name and deed we've named so far. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we were doing up until yesterday when the article got locked. Of course, I agree that the double/triple/quadruple work being done on multiple articles is a waste of time and effort.70.112.229.80 (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the most logical place to for an inclusive workplace is one where we can discuss all sorts of contemporary silence breaking, without any examples standing out as weird or unwanted for not using the hashtag, drawing inspiration from Weinstein or getting involved in British governance. Sometimes people just don't say anything till it's brought up, whatever "it" is. As long as it's about sex, revelation and fame from here on, I think it's a job for The Silence Breakers. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. the general phenomenon is not limited to the hashtag. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep but possibly rename. The month-long news story of sexual harassment/assault claims and subsequent resignations is clearly notable. I'm not at all convinced "Weinstein effect" is the correct title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tangible phenomenon and usage of the name is widespread enough to keep the article at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of a global reckoning against sexual assault/misconduct is clearly borne out in the sources that discuss the trend. When an article contains many examples, as this one does, many and most of the sources will only discuss the isolated case and not the trend, but there are close to a dozen sources in the article that discuss the overall trend. Many of these, including the first five cited sources specifically call this trend the "Weinstein effect", but I wrote this a month ago and as the event is still unfolding, the terminology may change, but that's a matter for talk page discussion, not deletion. The article should be reverted back to its prose format, which was smarter and written about broad generalizations across industries rather than listing every single accusation, which was once compiled on Metoo and was eventually removed ostensibly for insurmountable lack of BLP protections and because we are an encyclopedia, not a directory of allegations. czar 12:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As others have indicated, there's been in-depth, sustaining coverage of this topic such that a stand-alone article is merited. If it's not the most appropriate term, that can be discussed in a RM. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term has been used by several well-known publications, including USA Today (1), The Boston Globe (2), Newsweek (3), and CBS News (4). Mewtwowimmer (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussions above. Article has clear quality and notability above an expected or necessary threshold. Stormy clouds (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly merge or redirect. The term "Weinstein effect" might not be notable, but the news event in question is definitely notable (even if nothing more happens in 2018, which I judge unlikely), and the material currently on this page is a decent starting point if nothing else. —Kodiologist (t) 02:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The effect is highly notable. Oppose merge to either Me Too (hashtag) or Harvey Weinstein. The article has a high overlap with Me Too (hashtag), but not complete, since numerous people in the Weinstein effect article weren't outed on Twitter, and even more people who tweeted the hashtag weren't talking about anyone in the Weinstein effect article. Similarly, now that multiple notable politicians are stepping down, it's not at all clear that Harvey Weinstein is the most notable person affected by the effect. Would not be against a rename, if a more popular name for the effect is shown. --GRuban (talk) 03:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. The large overlap with Me Too (hashtag) does bother me, however I tink it is a bit early to decide how to organize this information right. There are several discussions going on and I may look into this later. For now just keep. The term and effect are notable and the best info organization will become clearer over time. gidonb (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. An encyclopedia has a higher mandate than to pander to the dizzy denizens of the kangeroo court of social media inquisition (the fast declining mainstream publications that shamefully follow and help foster this witchhunt mentality are also invalid as far as any reasonable person is concerned). This so-called "effect" can either be discussed on the Weinstien scandal page, or it doesn't need to exist at all. Alialiac (talk) 08:06, 12 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MinerGate[edit]

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

Yet another non-notable bitcoin website. Almost no mentions in any reliable source, any are only in passing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (web). Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, Spam on some software, happens every day and this isn't notable. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - while the software isn't spam, it is not notable. It also reads as such as an ADVERT and also not only that the references are mainly using github, and minergates own website which github does not necessarily count a reliable source as it is opensource and usually the repo is maintained or made by the company in this case Minergate. Only real source for it from at least what I consider reliable is bitcoin.com which is a news source for cryptocurrency, and bitcoin.it which is I consider one of the reliable wiki's out there on cryptocurrency, but mainly sources are minergate download links, and one affiliate link. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Article is written as an advertisement and promotional. Does not pass WP:GNG. Pretty sure this is also WP:G11 worthy. Operator873^CONNECT 00:40, 15 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) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of stories set in a future now past[edit]

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

Textbook trivia and cruft. (Note, I listified this from an earlier CfD). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a fascinating reference, lovingly maintained by interested parties. Czolgolz (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the number of media article write-ups on the accuracy or inaccuracy of predicted future events as the years come to pass. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly valid list, wondering if the title could be improved perhaps. Ajf773 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm hardly a disinterested party, but I feel this list has value as a historiographical examination of our perceptions of the future. Serendi ^pod ous 00:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG met, list entirely composed of notable elements. I just don't get the nomination rationale. Jclemens (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a list of stories which have a tenuous and arbitrary common denominator. Could you imagine List of stories with no one named Barry in it? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete A review of the contents reveals that the defining principle lumps together a lot of things that aren't much like each other. Is it even meaningful that Airport 1975 is set one year ahead of when it was released? there's a fair number of cases where a date a few years off (or even pretty far in the future, at the time) was used as a proxy for an alternate present: Nineteen Eighty-Four could with some justification be so classed, and Death of a President certainly fits this pattern. Is anyone really aware that Carrie was ostensibly set in the future? And to take an extreme case, 12 Monkeys is for all intents set first of all in a distant future, with excursions into the (then) present. There's perhaps a purpose for a list of works set in a (then) distant future whose vision of a world to come has since been overcome by events, but simply having been set in the future long enough ago is not a good enough principle to go by. Mangoe (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Technological advance was not universally synonymous with futurism until about the 1940s. Sure you had exceptions like HG Wells and Jules Verne but generally people had few reasons to assume that the future would be substantially different from their presents before then. I agree that this table probably should have more stringent entry requirements, but that would require a change of title, not deleting the article. Serendi ^podous 16:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why there's a statement up front in the lead paragraph and on the talk page about excluding contemporary-setting works, set a year or two ahead, unless it pertains specifically to some event like the 2012 phenomena or makes some statement about future society. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed 12 Monkeys and Airport 1975 from the list. I agree that's probably within contemporary given the film was released the year before. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of the Doctor Who episodes fall in the contemporary, but again, those can be scrubbed, or cited if they are to stay as with the Terminator Genisys entry. The point is that writers have been making up lists to compare future and past, especially on works like 1984, 2001, and Back to the Future. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know that "that's neat!" isn't a WP policy, but that is a really neat page that captures a phenomenon that I've thought about a few times but never thought to search for. PohranicniStraze (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per OR. Note that the only common theme of the references is the track record of fictional depictions/predictions, good or bad, about the future, none that appear to be about "stories set in a future now past". A list could be compiled of the former, not the latter. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand the list criteria: fiction, written in the past, set in the then-future, when that then-future has now been surpassed by the march of time. At some point in 300+ years from now, Star Trek will join the list, 50ish years after Babylon 5 does, IIRC. Star Wars doesn't count, because it it set in a galaxy far, far away. Simple and obvious calculations are not OR. Jclemens (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand my point. None of the references are for "stories set in a future now past", so this is a made-up criterion, hence OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The references would have to specifically be about how the story is set in a future that is past for the article to be notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Interesting concept, but largely original research, especially the dates, and has little encyclopedic value. Some entries with trivia like "correctly predicted X" seem to endorse psychic pseudoscience, as though the books were written by prophets. There is no delineation between important works of sci-fi and random cartoons. There is no particular reason why the exact dates that stories about the future are set in are important, nor does the article claim there is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but "prediction" does not mean "psychic powers." Scientists make predictions all the time. And yes, science fiction writers make correct predictions all the time. Some coin words that eventually come into common parlance, like "robot", "robotics" or "cyberspace". And I don't know where you're getting the OR from the dates from. Certainly not from any that I added in. Serendi ^podous 21:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure what makes this original research? Writers place a date or year in their fictional work and then says something about the society. The year comes to pass. A writer from a secondary source independent of the subject writes a news article discussing the work and how it compares the society with how the actual society turned out. If a prediction was listed as correct, it is cited by the news article writer making the claim, not the Wikipedia editor checking accuracies. The news article writers also present lists of films, video games, or books when the year has passed. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of research into the predictions of science fiction and what it means when predictions for periods set in a future now past have or haven't come to fruition (for instance, parts of Morgan, Chris. The shape of futures past: the story of prediction. Webb & Bower, 1980.). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out, the track record of predictions is fine, but that's not what this list purports to be. Reread the criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep very strong keep. Beside the fact this is important historically and academically no clear reason for deletion. And more importantly most of the entries are sourced (passes verifiability). All the articles are linked (passes notability. There is not reason for deleting this, except WP:ITSCRUFT–Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ironic that you would say that considering this is basically WP:ILIKEIT. You nor the article have made a convincing argument as to why it is important historically and academically. Attempting to predict the near future is a hallmark of a very large amount of sci-fi, so the fact that stories do it is not particularly special._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The person who'll close this will determine whether I am expressing WP:ILIKEIT or otherwise. I want it to be kept because it's "verifiable" and "notable" and had stated this clearly. Anything that satisfy these two criteria can have its other problems solved by fixing. I actually don't understand your remaining entences or how they relate to me. But you shouldn't be replying everybody considering your comment above contains only WP:ITSCRUFT and WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:06, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Considering you are the only person I replied to, I don't see how I am bludgeoning anything. I simply wanted to know why you felt so strongly about keeping the article, because your rationale for keeping is simply that there was no reason to delete and doesn't have any reason to keep. However, I did not just say "it's unencyclopedic" but also gave a reason that I think it is unencyclopedic, that there is nothing particularly special about the grouping of works in the list because most of all sci-fi works will choose some date as the setting for their imagined future and just doing that is not special or meaningful._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Considering that I gave my reason and again repeated it for your sake, but you still claim I didn't give any reason, no need to repeat it for the third time. I just hope the closer may be able to see it. Also, contrary to your claim; I am not the only one whom you replied to, but I am not ready to argue, in case you started arguing that you're not the one in this diff. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:47, 13 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. The nominator has withdrawn the nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arleta (musician)[edit]

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

The only visible claim matching any notability criterion is the "Labels" field in the infobox. If at least two of _her_ (not a musical group she belonged to) albums are with a major label, please consider this withdrawn. However, the likely reliable sources which would confirm this claim are in Greek. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see your point. What is the problem if the sources are in Greek? Does this mean these sources or those citing them cannot be relied on because most readers have no knowledge of the language? — Chris Liak (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without weighing in on the merits of this nomination, I would say that sources are not required to be in English(WP:NOENG) if that's all that is available. 331dot (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If someone would provide quotes and translations of the relevant Greek language sources, it would be appreciated. As I read the article, there were no statements which indicate criteria from WP:NMUSIC, although there are some which might indicate WP:GNG if explained. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, I cannot find English-language sources which indicate notability, and I cannot read the Greek-language sources which might indicate notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The late Arleta was, and still is, a very popular Greek songwriter, and singer in Greece, loved by the Greek public. Thousands of sources, mainstream Greek media, newspapers, periodicals, internet news portals etc., attest to this. Even CNN.gr has uploaded an extensive obituary for her, and also has a photo coverage of her funeral service, naming Arleta in the title as σπουδαία τραγουδοποιό (=great/important songwriter). ——Chalk19 (talk) 06:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If some of this were in the article, I wouldn't have made the nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If a tree falls in a forest outside the Anglosphaere/U.S. and no native Anglophone/U.S.American is around to hear it, does it make a sound or moreover had it ever existed in the first place for it to make a sound? ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 13:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanatos is half-joking above, but he has a point. Arleta was a very well-known singer in Greece and among Greek communities throughout the world, particularly during the 1960s and 70s, which means that most sources about her will be pre-internet print media and in an alphabet few people outside of Greece can read, and before Greek music charts existed. But here is her obituary in Kathimerini, one of Greece's most important daily newspapers, in both Greek [4] and the online English version [5]. Her importance to Greeks living abroad is noted in The Jerusalem Post [6] and The National Herald [7]. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw, then. There was still nothing in the article which indicates notability. Would one of you fix the article, or it will likely be nominated again. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind adding the English sources in the next few days - if Chalk19 or Thanatos666 have access to articles in Greek that could be added, it would be appreciated. Richard3120 (talk) 16:43, 9 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Nehlen[edit]

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

The previous AfD was closed as redirect because the consensus was the subject was not only notable per WP:BLP1E. Today, the redirect was reverted, and the user said that we need to "revisit the issue", without adding a single line to the previous version. Hence we go back here. Ymblanter (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After some time has passed, I agree with Ymblanter; this person seems to fail the WP:BLP1E standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventric (talk • contribs) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that he got coverage for running once for house; it's that he does it repeatedly, and is getting coverage again (especially in national conservative media). Take a look:

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/363789-paul-ryan-primary-challenger-to-ny-post-columnist-eat-a-bullet

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/paul-nehlen-gop-primary-wisconsin/2017/12/07/id/830556/

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/16/paul-nehlen-paul-ryan-primary-opponent-accuses-him/

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453829/steve-bannon-candidates-fail

On its own, this current run wouldn't pass notability, but I argue that his repeated runs (and repeated national coverage) does pass notability. Ethanbas ^(talk) 01:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The new "coverage" is simply in the context of a comment he made in a Twitter tweet, which is not a notability-conferring event at all — so it does not constitute compelling evidence that he's suddenly escaped WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fails politician notability and GNG as notable for only one event.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even those who win the primary are almost never ntoable, those who loose congressional primaries are even less notable. Running for congress more than once does not change someone into being notable. Multiple non-notable acts do not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There continue to be mainstream articles mentioning him, as noted above. Roger (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Each time the globalists found themselves an enemy, they try to delete him from Wikipedia. It's starting to show. AlexisPERR (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— AlexisPERR (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep Clearly established notability in articles over a long period in reliable sources. 121.75.204.130 (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC) — 121.75.204.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Does not seem notable for any reason, other than as a person who unsuccessfully runs for Congress from time to time.RobertGraves (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a matter of fame or importance. See WP:N lede. Unscintillating (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E, GNG, NPOLITICIAN. Keep responses do not make me believe additional information can be found to bring this article up to notability standards. South Nashua (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Obviously this is a case of non-deletion notability, which as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, any uninvolved editor can close this discussion and move it to the correct forum. Unscintillating (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- non notable as either "businessman, inventor,[3][4] pro bono consultant, or author[5]". Promotional brochure instead of an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed political candidate, BLP1E. Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I changed my mind on this, this guy gets a ton of media coverage, even now. Google news shows thousands of hits. He should clearly pass the bar of significant coverage for GNG. And he plans on running again: [8] I think the media wouldn't cover him as much if he were challenging anyone other than Paul Ryan.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:48, 14 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Udhayam TV[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Fails WP:BCAST. HINDWIKI • CHAT 09:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 09:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. HINDWIKI • CHAT 09:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HINDWIKI • CHAT 19:42, 7 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. CSD A9 applies as well. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 - The Risk Tape (EP)[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources demonstrating its notability. In addition, the page appears to have been created by the artiste who recorded the EP, Ozzmanic, whose page is also currently nominated for deletion for a similar reason, so there's a clear COI here. Fails WP:MUSIC. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HINDWIKI • CHAT 19:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just Spotify, Amazon, and iTunes in my searches. No reliable secondary sources whatsoever.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note - If the artist's article is deleted first, this should be speedily deleted.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:16, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Mainstream Top 40 chart achievements[edit]

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

I see no point in having a separate article for the list of chart achievements. Notably, it may make sense to have the List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones and the List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements, but it doesn't for any other chart, because there are too few entries for this chart. Not only so, the content on this page was originally on the main Mainstream Top 40 page, and there seemed to be nothing wrong with it. And now, it is on this page. Without the records and achievements on the main page, it looks more like an article stub. The point is, this page is just an unnecessary extension of the original records and achievements section on the main page, and having the records and achievements section on the main page is more sufficient. CheetaWolf (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CheetaWolf (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CheetaWolf (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CheetaWolf (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mainstream Top 40 Delete. All the info was copied and pasted from there and there's no need for a split. If anything, the trivia achievements on a secondary chart should be pruned. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect, this is basically a clone of the records and achievements section on the original page. Mathwizard888 (talk) 01:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really like this page. I think that it is useful. Sugarpuff888 (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is not a valid reason for retention. CheetaWolf (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care. I like it and that's final. No one can delete it. Sugarpuff888 (talk) 16:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not valid. CheetaWolf (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: Although counterintuitive, Sugarpuff888 is a sockpuppet of CheetaWolf, as is Mathwizard888. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugarpuff888.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:04, 10 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Field Engineer Marketplace[edit]

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

This is a non-notable business. The references lack WP:CORPDEPTH: they are blog posts, PR puff pieces in niche publications, routine coverage, etc. Article creator is a WP:SPA who created two related highly promotional articles (one of which has already been deleted, Malik zakaria) and likely has a conflict of interest. Deli nk (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - large numbers of single-purpose accounts have been adding inappropriate links to this article. Clearly a promotional effort. . . Mean as custard (talk) 11:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Sources are advertorials in trade magazines, blogs/interviews and routine announcements. A Google search did not reveal any possible better sources. Aside from the obvious promotional COI-editing and spamming, it is simply WP:TOOSOON for this topic. GermanJoe (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have toned down the worst of the promo. MAC, I don't understand your above comment; only the author and the three IPs could be considered SPAs, everyone else in it's short history has been half sysop and half cleanup crew. I'd decline an A7, and as I have nuked the promo, I don't think a G11 would be accepted as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but MAC seems to be saying that editors that haven't edited this article have been repeatedly adding wikilinks to this article. See for example Sachinreddy12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SAIKUMAR027 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Deli nk (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the creator of this article has now been blocked, along with a number of socks, for abusing multiple accounts: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mir.Mustafa.Ali. Deli nk (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete TOOSOON. I see some press releases, but not a lot of indepth. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:08, 8 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) 17:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demi the Daredevil[edit]

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

Non-notable band, local to the Texas area and local music festivals. No discussion or analysis of the band in major music publications. News articles do not go into the significant coverage of the band itself but are rather performance announcements in related festivals and local gigs. No singles or albums that have charted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:27, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with AngusWOOF, this article failes to meet the WP:BAND standard set forth. Ventric (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:BAND or any other inclusion criteria, and there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:27, 12 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) 17:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dooyong[edit]

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

Not enough significant coverage found to satisfy WP:CORP. Notability is not inherited from the arcade games they've made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ,,, as corporate spam. Hey you, yeah you! (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - VG:RS custom Google search only returned entries of the company's games on Arcade Museum, and several other misc. entries on that page, but no other significant coverage. --TL22 (talk) 01:19, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Pi Phi[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUD of WP:NORG - sources listed on talk page [9] and [10] are student newspapers of limited interest. No other coverage I have found. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying @Naraht: as he REFUNDed my PROD and wished to work on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was able to find [11], which I couldn't when I checked a month ago...hmm. Weird. Still don't think a few student newspaper and one local news sort of article is enough though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't think there are more than a few hundred people there - so closer to a tiny fraternal organization with a total membership of sixty members, world wide, is not "international in scale" simply because the members live in separate countries and have formed sub-chapters where they live. (from WP:NORG). Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my inclination was that it should be kept as a Greek letter organization with a reasonable number of chapters and members, given that it's quite new. However, I'm not voting yet specifically because there are currently no references outside of the organization's own website. I would hope that there are some external reliable sources that can be referred to in here. I will revisit in a few days to see how the article has been improved. PK T(alk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any automatic notability from being a greek letter organization (does that even mean much) or from having some chapters (i don't think each chapter has that many people..). Those sources I listed are all that I can find (and Naraht has found so far independently) - I don't think there are any more. Need at least some national media to reach WP:NORG's criteria. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize that I haven't had the time to work on it, I agree with the previous posters that 90% of the article should be junked, but I also feel the found references *do* meet the NORG. Anyone want to take a crack at adding them in?Naraht (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of reliable sources, as I noted previously. PK T(alk) 22:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest the user take a copy of the article and keep it in their sandbox or draft space, so that it can be worked on further. PK T(alk) 13:44, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources that show this passes WP:GNG not talk of WP:ORGDEPTH. Only primary refernce and Wikipedia article and its mirror show up. Also the overuse of "international" to assert notability is well another reason that shows it is not notable per caveat already covered at WP:NGO's caveat point. Ammarpad (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the use of International is because either they are, (one chapter in Massachusettes) or are the actual titles of the members of the Board.Naraht (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive Rewrite[edit]

PKT, Ammarpad, Galobtter OK. I did some updating. I've included all four references that have been mentioned and trimmed the officer (local and national). Please take another look and if I'm still the only one who supports keeping it, I'll call for it to be closed with delete.

There needs to be a signature in the edit for pings to go through (I didn't get the ping); so PKT and Ammarpad. I have seen the sources and don't think it's enough for WP:CORPDEPTH. Including the sources shouldn't really matter, as the sources that WP:NEXIST is what matters, but it can sometimes help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 04:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter Apologies.Naraht (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nahrah's edit is a good effort, but actually on reading the content of the sources, they cannot be described as significant coverage in any sense. And thats why they end up in infobox, the bulk of the article body is referenced to their website (primary source) because no coverage from independent reliable source It still doesn't meet WP:ORGIND. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm in agreement with Ammarpad. It's a good effort to add outside resources, but I don't think the sorority meets WP:ORGIND either. Perhaps a reasonable solution would be to move the article to the author's draft space so that it can be worked on. PK T(alk) 13:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well..notability cannot be fixed. Also I believe a lot of it is copyvio/close paraphrasing of the website, and so unsuitable to be worked on. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter says it all. There are somethings which are just not fixable. Only deletion can fix them. –Ammarpad (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

presuming the sorority lasts long enough it will get fixed. And oddly if it does get deleted, we'll have the references that have been found so far here in the deletion discussion (which isn't that common)
I'm curious as to what you think is copyvio. Things like the Pillars would have a very difficult time being rephrased, though the Symbols might be better in a list.Naraht (talk) 14:39, 13 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 Caress of Steel. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Necromancer (song)[edit]

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

Non notable, non-single Rush song as per WP:NSONGS. No references in the article at all, possibly WP:OR. Permafrost46 (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HindWiki^Connect 19:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album featuring the song: Caress of Steel, per WP:NSONG Note 1. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:24, 8 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of Bosaso[edit]

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

This university partners with the unaccredited Bircham International University and the equally unaccredited Cambridge International College, BC. There are no independent sources in this article, whihc was started by a user now banned as a spamming sockpuppet. Given that it is reselling courses from two degree mills, we need independent coverage to ensure NPOV, and that does not appear to exist. Guy (Help!) 14:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam. Renata (talk) 01:29, 14 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. CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Gobble[edit]

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

Seems to be an ex local sheriff cum politician who fails WP:POLOUTCOMES , coverage is all local that one would expect to see for all such people. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting speedy deletion - should have submitted to AfC. Bneu2013 (talk) 13:20, 7 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) 17:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon expedition[edit]

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

Article is about the term given in the title, apparently a neologism coined by the article's author (WP:COI, WP:DICDEF, WP:NEO). A search finds hardly anything. Of the two sources given in the article, the first is by the author and the second isn't about the term: it's not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage isn't there yet. Nice concept but needs more uptake and 3rd party publicity before it can be an article; no good sources to be found. Despite three new species of me coming out of the first one :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable neologism, at least not yet. Agricolae (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article falls under WP:COI, but could be re-created at another time using more sourced material. Ventric (talk) 23:15, 7 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy per VRT ticket #2021110210000186.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Frontiers Journal[edit]

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

Should be a section in the Molecular Frontiers Foundation, as it is not notable enough to have a page on it's own. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to Molecular Frontiers Foundation per what Adotchar stated. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually inaccurate to merge the Molecular Frontiers Journal to the Molecular Frontiers Foundation page as they are separate entities although there are some linkage when the Journal first started. The two pages can have some form of linkage but not one as the subsection of the other. The journal title just happened to share the same term "Molecular Frontiers" doesn't mean it is a journal published by the Foundation and in fact, it is not, especially in the legal point of view. To reveal some of the history on the conception of the journal, many open access journals and topics were discussed between Prof. Bengt Norden and World Scientific Publishing. It just happened that "Molecular Frontiers" was the favourite and familiar term because of various reasons and it was decided to use it to kick start the whole idea. Putting the Journal as a section in the Molecular Frontiers Foundation will mislead readers and might cause unnecessary problems among all the parties involved and hinder the development of the Journal and future development of other ideas that were discussed. It is important that Wikipedia provides the facts rather than based on assumptions because of certain similarities. If one thinks that Molecular Frontiers Journal by itself is not notable enough to have a page on it's own, it should be taken out all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwlee531 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the above, I think this article should be deleted as it has not yet established notability. Maybe in the future it will and it can be restored. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely fails WP:NJOURNALS. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not against a merge, however.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since it's verifiable. But only no independent sources to warrant a standalone page. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -I changed from merge after thought about Cwlee531's Comment above. Their website (only source of their existence) didn't clarify so also –Ammarpad (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable journal. Not convinced the proposed merge target is notable either.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:12, 14 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 08:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michiels Drive[edit]

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

Non-notable residential street in an unknown location (probably Alexandria, Louisiana) named after some non-notable immigrants. A search brings up nothing but properties for sale and similar trivial mentions. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom: the person after whom the street was named appears to have been speedily deleted, and there's nothing else about the street that passes GNG. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for the page is too trivial and for the lack of sources. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—fails WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 14:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 17:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG, and does not pass WP:GEOROAD (although that's a bit redundant since passing georoad would mean passing gng). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inasmuch as this might seem like a pile-on !vote, clearly this road fails any sort of inclusion criteria. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 11 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 merge to Decatur High School (Alabama)#Athletics. As there is a suitable and obvious merge target, and Wikipedia is not a mindless bureaucracy, I'm going ahead and closing this (and will make the merge myself afterwards). The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ogle Stadium[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No indication that this isn't just some ordinary run-of-the-mill sports venue. Bneu2013 (talk) 09:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the stadium was opened in 1949 and hosted no major games are the sell off for deletion Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Decatur High School (Alabama)#Athletics. Some of the detail from this article is sufficiently germane to, and should be incorporated at that article. Multiple sources are evident in quick search to substantiate this facility's history, e.g. [12]--Arxiloxos (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Arxiloxos' recommendation. (For what it's worth, it's extraordinary in north Alabama for a public high school to have its own football "stadium" on the grounds, meaning that this might be considered a "notable" feature by a local, whereas in other parts of the U.S., e.g. the Southwest, a football-field-with-stands-and-a-track like this one is a standard feature of most public high school campuses.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:24, 7 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 08:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashutosh Gupta[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion photographer, fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Looks like a puff piece. The article has been deleted under these titles Ashutosh (Ash) Gupta and Ash Gupta, the latter being salted. FITINDIA 09:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 10:12, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: several of the refs are to Tumblr, so fail GNG: the remainder appear to be either puff-pieces or articles about the subject of the photographs, rather than the photographer. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. -- Hoary (talk) 09:50, 12 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 08:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashika Bhatia[edit]

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

Non-notable actress - does not meet wp:nactor PRehse (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PRehse notified me because I'm the first editor in the history, but actually I merely moved a page and thus a redirect was created here. However, note that the pagemove put that page at Aashika Bhatia, and that title's been deleted so many times that it's been salted. Nyttend (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since article is completely unsourced (apart from the external link) and subject fails notability guidelines. Also most actual edits are made by Shiwam Kumar Sriwastaw's socks as well as the IP ranges commonly used by this sock farm (47.29.0.0/16 and 2405:204::/32). -★- PlyrStar93. _{→Message me. ←} 20:59, 8 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 (by User:Anthony Bradbury) SmartSE (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of a digital marketing ninja[edit]

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

No indication that this is notable by our standards. The title gets no hits on GNews. It is not listed in WorldCat. The sources in the page are an illiterate puff-piece by a "freelance blogger" and a review that appears to have been written by the author. Page created by a paid editor, so promotional in intent if not in tone. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Regardless of tone, this is unambiguous advertising. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as above. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:58, 7 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 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Kushneriuk[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 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 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Henningson[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:N and WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 8 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 08:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Haddad[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 11:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 9 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 merge to Waste Management (album)#Singles. – Joe (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snowfalls[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG; only mention I can find is a review of the album in The UrbanWire 23 Dec 2009 entitled Chuck Waste Management into the Bin : "Bad vocals and uninspired beats make up most of Waste Management, the long awaited third English album from Russian faux-lesbian duo t.A.T.u . ... Subsequent tracks “Sparks”, “Snowfalls” and “Little People” headed down a slippery slope to the trance/techno genre that will remind you of being in a club ." that isn't notability. Apparently the song nearly made it into the Top 40 in Brazil, at 54, but otherwise, needs either nuking or merging into album. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:10, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Waste Management (album)#Singles, with a redirect hatnote there to Snowfall (disambiguation). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Waste Management (album)#Singles - Well it never charted here (UK) and it never charted in Germany either (Click "84 TITEL VON T.A.T.U.") .... I'll go as far as to say other than Brazil it never charted anywhere, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 15:18, 7 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 08:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Alan K Phillips[edit]

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

Suspected autobiography of non-notable person (article creator is a SPA by the name of "Lordmatty31"). Article was PRODded shortly after creation in 2011 but declined. Supposed notability demonstrated by a brief appearance as an extra in James May's Toy Stories, and being interviewed twice for the local news programme, once as a teenager visiting Lundy Island, and again a few years later as one of a group of students protesting tuition fees. Richard3120 (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 06:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 06:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've deleted links to a page which is now hosting an online casino, a link to a YouTube copyvio, and a dead link to a local news site which returns an error page: the remaining refs fail verification. Even if these refs did work though, there's nothing here to demonstrate General Notability: being an unnamed extra in one TV show and playing bass in an unsigned punk band are way below the standard for WP:NPEOPLE. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a hoax or something dreamed up in school one day. Szzuk (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Borderline A7. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this line in the article sums it up "He is currently unemployed but wishes to develop his Acting and TV Career." The claims about his online retail involvement would not add anything even if true, even if he was a bassist in a known band, that would be far from passing notability for a musician. The evidence that the band mentioned exists at all is currently zero, and that it has ever done anything more notable than play at some small pub in Britain is even less likely. Actually we lack evidence the band has ever performed publicly at all. The two times he was a person on the street interviewee do not add up to "numerous". Only if he was consistently turned to as an expert would just being the subject of interivews make him notable. This looks more like dishonest boosterism than a hoax, but being an extra in a TV show, even if it was super major, is just not enough for notability nor is anything else here. To me the very existence of this article illustrates that we need to set up some more stringent limits on who can create articles. The fact that it has survived for 6 years is a true travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 9 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) 11:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Velipuolikuu[edit]

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

Delete: as non-notable pointless text of some kind. Quis separabit? 05:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure what the nomination means by "pointless text". The subject is a Finnish television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable television show on YLE, which is the Finnish national broadcasting company (think BBC, in terms of national importance, although perhaps even more dominating). Was, according to the long and fairly well-sourced , rebroadcasted in 1994 and shown again in compiled form in 2003. The sketches have been published in book format, with comments. It's been sold both on VHS and DVD, which, given that it originally ran in the early 80s, means some sort of lasting importance. The Finnish article has, as far as I can tell, good sources, including discussion of the programme in Helsingin Sanomat (the major Finnish newspaper) a decade after the series was first shown, and a book on the history of Finnish television programming. Notable, verifiable. Someone who speaks better Finnish than I do shouldn't have any problems making this clearly better. /Julle (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and an absolute {{trout}} to the nominator, who when it comes to making this a SK3 case missed it by this much. Yes, stubby article needs refs badly, but AfD is not for cleanup. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Albeit the above comments given, the article is written shabbily which can be improved with cleanup but it is written in an editorial, tabloid manner and the lack of sources (not even one given) makes it very not verifiable. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable, if need be drop the bomb and rebuild. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cites no reliable sources (IMDB is not one), meaning it fails WP:V. Sandstein 08:38, 14 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. David Eppstein, please move to correct title and make deirects as appropriate DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Wan[edit]

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

Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ARTIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find anything online about this artist. RelaxedTim (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The correct Annie is notable L3X1 (distænt write) 22:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing online about the subject. Fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Full name Annie Wan Lai Kuen returns numerous sources.104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Added new search parameters below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

SPEEDY KEEP based on the multiple museum collections she is in, thereby meeting WP:ARTIST. I've added them-- see the article. There are many many sources out there. She's a ceramicist primarily, who went back to school to get a degree in more technological art. Someone wrote her up as a 'locative media' artist, which is now what she is known for. the article might have been a rebranding attempt. It;s her ceramics that are in multiple collections around the world. Virtually all of the votes above (and the nom) are incorrect, as there are lots of sources if you look for them using the proper name. This nomination should almost be thrown out, as it and the discussion above is largely incorrect.104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK let's hold on a minute. There seem to be two artists named Annie Wan. The article before i started adding referenced seems to have already mixed up the two of them.... although I am not sure.104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes, compare the photos in the references: DXArts alumna or Professor at HK Baptist university? It's two different people. The article needs to be rewritten to be about the professor... but maybe TNT is more appropriate. This confusion is included in the original article back in April 2016.104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed I removed all instances of the younger Annie Wan and kept the instances of the more notable Annie Wan Lai Kuen. Article should be probably be renamed to Annie Wan Lai Kuen.104.163.154.101 (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The problem with this is that the biographies of two different people will be intermingled in the Revision history for this article. I recommend that a new, separate article be made for Annie Wan Lai Kuen. I also notice that some of the content from the version of the article when nominated for deletion (link) contains some of the same content in the revised article (diff), which is ambiguous and could potentially be inaccurate. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, can you make the new article form the material here?104.163.154.101 (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am not sure what you mean by "when nominated for deletion (link) contains some of the same content in the revised article (diff)", as this is true of almost all articles nominated for deletion and cleaned up. Since you started the AfD, and your WP:BEFORE did not turn up the dual identities in the nominated article, it would certainly be lovely if you took care of fixing whatever objections you have.104.163.154.101 (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For more discussion of sources found. Note that this is the article for Annie Wan Lai-kuen/Annie Wan Lai Kuen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:08, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that we've focused the article on Wan Lai-kuen. She clearly passes WP:ARTIST 4(d), "represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". No opinion on whether we should have an article on the other Annie Wan but for now we should discuss the one we do have. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 11:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... in some form. Well, this is a confusing one. I agree that Annie Wan Lai Kuen is clearly notable, but as originally created this article was about Annie Wan (albeit with some details about Wan Lai Kuen mixed in) and the consensus seems to be that she is not yet notable. Many thanks to the IP editor for improving the article and clearing up the confusion, but in doing so they've shifted the topic from one person to another, which is not ideal. We could just keep it as is, but I agree with Northamerica1000 that the clearest thing to do would be to copy the current content to a new article at Annie Wan Lai Kuen. Obviously then Annie Wan would have to be redirected there rather than deleted, to retain the attribution in the page history. – Joe (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Annie Wan Lai Keun and make Annie Wan into a redirect. A Google search shows that some results have a hyphen between the last two names, and "Keun" both with and without an upper-case "k", so other redirects might also be required. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Western-first-name surname Chinese-first-name?? That's a really weird name order. I don't think I've ever seen it used outside of this article. Even aside from your misspelling, the standard name orderings would be Annie Lai Kuen Wan (as used in the Burger Collection link), Annie Lai-kuen Wan (as used in the Salford link), or Wan Lai Kuen (Annie) (if you insist on using the Chinese name ordering then you should do something to separate the western name from that ordering). —David Eppstein (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I put my hands up and admit that my knowledge of Chinese naming conventions is clearly lacking: I hope nobody is offended. David Eppstein, I'll leave you to suggest the best name for the main page and decide which redirects are required. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:13, 7 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. And rename to List of individual birds, to include only real birds. Sandstein 08:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical and fictional birds[edit]

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

An IP requested this be nominated for deletion for as "an indiscriminate collection of items from several loosely-related topics," so I am putting it up for discussion. 28bytes (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move back to List of famous birds because that's what it is (it was moved in 2008). It's a reasonable topic, although I think the selection criteria could be refined, it could use cleanup to comply with MOS:LIST, and the entries could be referenced (assuming references can be found in the linked articles). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@28bytes: would you be able to link to the IP's request? I looked in the usual places but can't find it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it was a request on my talk page. 28bytes (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unadvised merger of unlike things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 04:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of individual birds, delete the fictional ones (there's already a List of fictional birds), the constellations and the groups. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescope as proposed by Ivanvector. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above; neutral between List of individual birds and List of famous birds for a new name. It is a valid WP:SAL as far as the individual real birds on it are concerned, and no other list on that topic appears to exist. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of individual birds per Clarityfiend. Prefer individual birds to famous birds as that is the naming convention used in several other pages, see Category:Lists of individual animals. DferDaisy (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move back to List of famous birds. "Individual" for almost everything animal is a silly title. There is a "List of fictional birds" --BeckenhamBear (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of individual birds per established precedent._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to aid closer: List of individual birds works for me just fine. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:27, 11 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) 11:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Czech presidential election, 2023[edit]

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

The 2018 election hasn't even taken place yet and this article consists entirely of quoted vague media speculation. Textbook WP:CRYSTALBALL. RevivesDarks (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too soon for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Way too soon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article just says the presidential election is expected to happen in 2023 (it does not say it will happen) and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Vorbee (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page is pure speculation. #REDIRECT [[Elections_in_the_Czech_Republic#Presidential_elections]] could be another option but I think the page will be re-created in the right moment, after more reliable facts emerge. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:32, 9 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 merge to Fortis Healthcare. – Joe (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortis Bangalore[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as not notable Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only Google hits are in relation to journalists quoting consultant clinicians, in regard to their individual areas of expertise: the fact that they worked at this particular hospital is incidental to the reportage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is a page on Fortis Healthcare, which has a scope for expansion. The afd could be included there if references can be found. MT Train^Discuss 15:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 15:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. I have added more references to the existing article. Also, Fortis Malar Hospital is a link that already exists. Similarly Fortis Bangalore should be retained.User:Annakoppad (talk) 04:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC) (!vote stricken. Only !vote per person Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, can be expanded on the lines of Fortis Malar Hospital, or maybe merged with a parent article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:34, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been expanded much since I AfD'ed it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 Public (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the owner of the article. I have expanded the articles based on the responses of people who reviewed the article. I believe that the article can be expanded similar to Fortis Malar Hospital. Annakoppad (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Annakoppad[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Fortis Healthcare. This does not need its own page. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Annakoppad has been violating the PAID policy by not disclosing, but as of yesterday has started disclosing. I am working with them to get complete disclosure done and help them learn what we expect of paid editors. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fortis Healthcare as per my earlier comment. MT Train^Discuss 07:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge very selectively to Fortis healthcare. it's basically just listing information. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 7 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 moved to Draft:Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze Wattwan. This is a difficult close, because there are respected editors on both sides of the question. However, as it stands, the editors who point out that the article is both lacking in verification and unverifiable from basic searches are correct. Urdu sources may or may not exist, but at present we have insufficient context to even carry out a search for such sources. Although there is not a consensus to delete this article, I am therefore boldly moving it to draft space, until such time as at least some verification from a reliable source - in any language - can be provided. bd2412 T 20:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makkah Model School System - MMS Feroze wattwan[edit]

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

There is no coverage in WP:RS and because it is for-profit private school so it has to pass WP:GNG which it fails. Störm (talk) 17:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We don't disqualify articles just because a school has a for-profit model. You've previously nominated this article and it was closed with a procedural keep; no improvement in this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 18:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with previous one. We need at least one independent source before making any assumption. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of adequate sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Being private is utterly irrelevant. Not sure why the nominator thinks it makes a difference. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Failing our core policy WP:V. Störm (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And there is the classic story claiming a longstanding consensus and precedent while both are clearly sunk by the RFC that Necrothesp prefers to deny... The Banner talk 19:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. now that i have removed the absurd promotionalism ; it still needs to have the information moved or copied from the infobox to the actual article. We normally do keep schools like this; there is sufficient information for verifiability, and we assume sources for notabilty would be able to be found if we had sufficient access to the likely sources. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pleased to consider anything you've found that shows the school exists. I can't find anything. JMWt (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. At present, the article does not cite independent sources and I have not been able to find any that could be used to base content on. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: You didn't find any in English language. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the look of article doesn't determine it's notability. High schools are presumably notable by community consensus. Also for WP:BIAS this article is in Pakistan where Urdu is official language. So just searching with Latin letters in Googles and concluding not notable is not fair. We must also search for sources in Urdu and local print newspaper tend to cover such schools events more than National, and these papers are majority in Urdu and local languages. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad, past consensus was that articles were kept except where zero independent sources could be found. Just asserting that Urdu sources exist isn't enough. Can you provide any? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please show anything in any language. I want to !vote keep. JMWt (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Urdu, @Cordless Larry and JMWt:. But that's not reason for me to conclude that there are no sources. It's educational establishment. And concerning consensus, few days ago, you (Cordless) told me the "community is divided on this" and I agreed. So now you should'nt use consensus like it was "delete any that come to AfD" –Ammarpad (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community was never divided on whether we delete articles about subjects that cannot be verified, although it seems that some editors are now so committed to keeping articles on secondary schools that they are willing to see them kept even when no evidence can be provided that they exist. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, now that I inspect File:Makkah Model School Feroze Wattwan' Front Side.jpg closely, I am starting to think that this might be a hoax. What's going on with that flag in the photo? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless, see this. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see some evidence that the subject actually exists, which is a pretty basic requirement for having an encyclopedia article about it! Cordless Larry (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't bias to insist that there is verifiable evidence about a page subject. None of us speak or read the local language, so it is entirely possible that sources do exist in local sources. But given that nobody has offered or found any, the only choices are either (a) imagining that the subject can't be a hoax and that therefore sources exist or (b) that we've no idea and must therefore delete until such point as someone offers sources (in any language) that can be verified. I say (b) is the only way forward. I'm perfectly happy to change my mind when someone can show acceptable sources in any language. JMWt (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need to at least remove the poorly photoshopped picture. It looks like original photos are this and this, but the picture in the article is obviously manipulated and does not accurately represent the school. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:V and WP:RS. The Banner talk 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You rely only on English search, that's why. Search with their local and national language. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but how can we know what it says in non-English sources, given that nobody has offered any? What if, for example, there are no relevant foreign language sources? You seem to be asserting that we should accept that those sources must exist even though there is currently little offered evidence that the school even exists. JMWt (talk) 08:32, 14 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias Prinz[edit]

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

Does not meet notability WP:BIO. He seems to be a lawyer that has occasionally represented some large companies, but beyond that do see how he is that important. Rusf10 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable lawyer who has represented various celebrities / royals, getting a lot of coverage (including interviews etc.) from it. Also published author. Lots of references. I don't understand the nomination. —Kusma (t·c) 21:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

most of those references are not from reliable sources. Just because he has represented a celebrity does not necessarily make him notable. Also, the article was created by a user that has contributed to no other article, leading me to believe the user may somehow be associated with him.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look through the Google News coverage and you will see that there are stories about Prinz, not just about the cases he was involved in. See for example two RS [13] and [14]. If a lawyer is interviewed about his personal life, this kind of tells you people are interested in him as a person. While you may believe he is not "important", he clearly meets the notability guidelines. Sure, the article needs work, but AfD is not cleanup. —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This RS calls him "Germany's most well-known media lawyer". I rest my case. —Kusma (t·c) 10:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete interviews are not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 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 02:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is a bit of a mess but there seems to be quite subatantial coverage in reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient information, not just mentions, and I tend to accept the judgement of deWP for German figures--their standards for notability are higher than ours. And he is the author of what seems to be the standard German textbook on the subject DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the de.wiki is indicative of notability, and the article is not TNT-deletable at the moment. Appears to be a noted figure in his field. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Handelsblatt source found by Kusma is definitive enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 12 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. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum (software)[edit]

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

Aspect of Firefox. This redevelopment can be covered in the relevant Firefox articles themselves as part of its history ViperSnake151 Talk 20:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already too large to merge back into the Firefox article, and it is linked to from other locations and will likely be linked to from others shortly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quantum has received coverage apart from just being an update to Firefox -- in fact, Quantum is the product version of Servo (layout engine), which is notable on its own. —cnzx (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm using Firefox Quantum and think its a great improvement. That said, I'd keep this (not just because I like it). I know firefox has a million versions and we can't have an article on every one, but this was a major change in the software (especially in performance). I'd also propose a rename to "Firefox Quantum" because that's the actual name of the product. --Rusf10 (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The new software has been widely covered in the media and these sources are reflected in the article. Alansohn (talk) 04:36, 7 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) 11:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark O'Keefe[edit]

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

Delete: -- thoroughly non-notable individual. Quis separabit? 02:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are quite a few Google hits - but none of them are for this O'Keefe. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a major party's non-winning candidate for state governor can be enough for an encyclopedia article if he's shown as the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG, but it is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from having to have enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG. But this is completely unsourced, and literally identical to the original version from 2004 but for the toning-down of one WP:NPOV-violating adjective about the outgoing predecessor. What actually happened here is that about a year after it was first created, somebody hijacked it to be about a Hollywood screenwriter instead of the Montana gubernatorial candidate, and it remained about the screenwriter for 12 full years until it was reverted back to the gubernatorial candidate just over one week ago on the grounds that the screenwriter's notability wasn't properly sourced either. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if the politician or the screenwriter (or both) can be properly sourced as clearing their respective notability criteria, but our tolerance for unsourced BLPs is much, much lower than it was in 2004 and neither Mark O'Keefe was properly sourced at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Small coverage found in this Google Books search and routine mentions found in Google News following his opponents death do not constitute notability. There will, of course, be the routine election coverage in Montana but there may still be print sources found in major US newspapers but we cannot confirm that without a knowledgeable Montanan. Nothing in Google News Archive either. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having an article with no sources at all should prevent even the creation. We need to set up a mechanism so that all articles on creation have at least one source. Although there appears to be a very small amount of sourcing possible on this individual, it is not enough to show notability. Loosing a gubanatorial election can often be enough to make someone notable, but we need sustained, widespread coverage to show such. Also, it is a bit hard to say that. A large portion of people who are candidates for governor are people who are notable for other reasons, such as having been members of state legislatures, being major business figures like Dick De Vos, major lawyers like Geoffrey Fieger, holders of positions such as State Attorney General or Liutenant Governor, some are even current or former members of congress. So it is hard to say that these people are notable for their position as a candidate for governor. Thus James Moyle may or may not have been notable if he had only been a Democratic party candidate for Utah governor in 1900 and 1904, loosing both times. He had been a member of the Utah Territorial legislature, which almost certainly is grounds for notability, especially since he seems to have been a highly active member of the legislture. He has also been the subject of two published biographies, his role as president of the Eastern States Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been covered in scholarly works possibly enough to propel notability (his work was heavily covered in an article on the LDS missionaries using radio for prosyletizing in the mid-20th-century), and his position as assistant secretary of the US treasury under Woodrow Wilson is more than likely a sign of notability. While this is often the level of general civic involvment that is why gubenatorial candidates are found to be notable, others lack such broad notability and there is no reason to have an article on them. An example of a truly non-notable candidate for governor is Mike Weinholtz, who was so not trying to win the election he did things engaged in bigotted religious attacks and then defended them in a way designed to outrage the majority of the electorate, akin to running for mayor of Detroit and then advertising in a show African-Americans viewed as offensive, and then instead of apologizing for giving the offense, doubling-down and saying those who were offended were out of line for being so. Moyle had to have turned over in his grave when Weinholtz did this, although it is a sign that the Ross Anderson wing of the party was not destroyed enough by Mr. Anderson's run for US president as an enemy of the two party system, the less power and influence Ross "I will endorse a move of Nordstrom as long as it hurts the LDS Church" Anderson has in the Utah Democratic Party, the better chances the party has of actually winning an election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 9 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) 11:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Punjabi Music Awards[edit]

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

Article about a regional music award, referenced entirely to its own primary source content about itself rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage in media. And the article is so poorly maintained that it's spent the entire month of November containing an extended and poorly-written biographical sketch of one individual musician, not to mention the fact that the ceremony which occurred eight months ago is still described as an upcoming event. Music awards are not automatically deemed notable just because their own self-published website verifies that they exist -- they need to be the subject of coverage in media that are independent of their own public relations efforts, but this isn't showing any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- seems legit, I've found several mentions of it in the news. For example: [15] [16]--Rusf10 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Bearcat (as you know, but thought i would mention this for wikineweditors:)), being a regional anything doesn't preclude a subject from being in wp, neither is a poorly maintained article (just fixt it and place it on your watchlist:)), what counts are independent sources that discuss the subject, unfortunately the article doesn't presently have them, hopefully some editors will rectify this. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HINDWIKI • CHAT 01:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Yes, the award may be notable, but no sources are available and the article get F- for effort. I think we should expect better from encyclopedia entries that this unsourced list of award categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and K.e., above; no independent notability shown. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 8 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. Redirecting was also suggested, but this can be decided outside of an AfD. – Joe (talk) 11:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masreliez's theorem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Masreliez’s theorem

Articles for deletion/Masreliez's theorem

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

The same rationale as caused deletion before still applies (this article was created by a sock of the original article and should never have been recreated out-of-process, but there we are), this article is substantively equivalent to the version that existed at the time of the last nomination (not deletion). The issue is that the theorem though referenced obliquely is basically just a statement about Kalman filtering and, you'll note, the article itself does not even state the theorem instead, the goal is to promote the author. I don't see any salvageable content and I don't think mere mention in journal articles is what constitutes a WP:GNG jump. Primefac (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Searching Google scholar for this exact phrase finds multiple publications by disjoint sets of authors, none of them Masreliez himself, that all appear to be about this topic: "A representation of the posterior mean for a location model", NG Polson, Biometrika 1991; "Kalman filter with a non-linear non-Gaussian observation relation", T Cipra & A Rubio, Trabajos de Estadistica 1991; "Non-Gaussian State-Space Modeling of Nonstationary Time Series: Comment: Robustness, Computation, and Non-Euclidean Models" RD Martin & AE Raftery, JASA 1987 (a top author in a top journal); etc. I think that's enough for the low bar of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the last AfD, I think you'll find that a lot of the citations are a bit suspect. I think it is questionable as to whether this is a novel claim about Kalman filtering or whether it is just a restatement of something rather obvious about it. My inclination is to say that it is the later as the provenance and prevalence of the use of this idea in spite of Kalman filtering being a huge industry is rather weak as you point out. Could we compare it to other signal processing theorems that get more play? I can't find another example that is as obscure as this in Wikipedia. Why not just redirect to the article on filtering? jps (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would sure help a lot if the article said what the theorem actually was. It's possible that it's the kind of result that would fit into another article, such as Kalman filter, but wouldn't stand on its own. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Severe content issues, but this does appear to unambiguously refer to a theorem by Masreliez published in 1975, and is cited enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buy why a separate article? jps (talk) 15:12, 12 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) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Kapunda Hotel[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, no reliable sources. Most of the article is about the pub being haunted. Metaloaf (talk) 01:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if it as old as claimed it would have heritage significance, disregarding all the guff currently in it.--Grahame (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a speedy keep I think. Was any WP:BEFORE done? Immediate search results show current hits from independent reliable sources such as Heritage Australia, The Daily Telegraph, SBS, any others. TROVE gives a few thousand historical hits, both about the facility and the use of and activity in the pub in the daily lives of people and organisations over many years. Very solid WP:NEXIST supporting clear WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or indeed yes "speedy keep" per User:Aoziwe. Even just this one Heritage Australia page about Kapunda provides enough to make its notability clear. The page includes a photo, gives an alternate/current name ( Sir Sidney Kidman Hotel) for the hotel which would also provide hits, and establishes it was the main hotel in Australia's first mining town. I expect it is specifically a listed building in Australia's heritage register and in South Australia's heritage register. --Doncram (talk) 23:02, 7 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. Consensus is that we should cover this topic; whether as a list and/or an article is for editors to discuss and come to a consensus to on the talk page. Sandstein 08:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black women filmmakers[edit]

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

This article is very well written, but it's simply not encyclopedic. It has far too many opinions stated as fact and its own original conclusions based on other research, which amounts to original research. I would be in favor of creating a list of Black women filmmakers. JDDJS (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:25, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:26, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable topic. There are two full-fledged books mentioned in the article: Black Women Film & Video Artists and Women Filmmakers of the African & Asian Diaspora. Both The New York Times and The New Yorker write about a film series featuring black women directors here and here. This article has a "By the numbers" section about this topic. There is a book called Women Filmmakers: Refocusing that has results about black women. Jump Cut has an article here... I'm honestly tripping over these sources. Fine if the article needs clean-up, but the topic is definitely notable here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- maybe it does need some work, but it is better than just a list. It provides some background on the topic.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move page to List of Black Women Filmmakers. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is a notable subject as shown above but the original research needs to be removed Atlantic306 (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik. Dozens more sources could be found easily that establish the notability of black female filmmakers as a group. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the notability discussions here aren't really useful; I think everyone agrees that this topic has been discussed in the media. The question is whether an encyclopedic article can be written on this, or whether it should be a list article instead. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is exactly my point. Currently, the article is not encyclopedic and has far too much original research and is not at all neutral. The question should be if the article can be rewritten in a way that could avoid these issues. Personally, I do not think so. JDDJS (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the subject, which is clearly notable, is better suited to a list or an article is a discussion that belongs on the article's talk page. AfD is not cleanup. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm proposing isn't clean up. It's completely deleting the current article and then creating a new article titled List of Black women filmmakers. JDDJS (talk) 03:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you're proposing is clean-up. We already have a list of black female filmmakers. You'd like to delete it and create a new one from scratch. Your rationale was that the subject isn't encyclopedic. That's clearly not true. Now what's your rationale for deletion? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:48, 9 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. – Joe (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinamay[edit]

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

No sources cited at all and fails WP:Notability and it is very much written in an editorial style. The article has limited substance. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the way this article is written makes it come across as an advertisement for Abaca fibre. Vorbee (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 7 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.