Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 February 16 February >

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. czar 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederique Janssen[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS. The European Games are not a senior event (for swimming) but a junior championship. Fram (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets GNG. Among others article in De Telegraaf, a main Dutch news paper. Sander.v.Ginkel (Talk) 18:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[1] This one? A request to donate money to support her, because she may one day become notable. The main reason she gets some very limited attention is because she is the daughter of a famous sportsperson. And having said that, probably instead of deletion the better solution would be Redirect to Annemarie Verstappen (where she isn't even mentioned now, that's how notable Frederique at the moment is...). Fram (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 05:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - To her mother's page. This is a case of too soon; maybe she will become notable on her own merits but that is not the case yet.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. I see no reason for a redirect based on WP:Too soon. – Editør (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable swimmer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should indicate whether deletion or redirection is a better course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not Redirect - per nominator's rationale. Creating a redirect for non-notable people is pointless. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bassat[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. simply founding a company does not confer inherent notability. and the award "Australian EY Entrepreneur Of The Year" hardly adds to notability. also nominating his brother for similar reasons:

LibStar (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The award is notable but there's no other indication of evidence of notability, therefore fails WP:BIO. There is even less evidence for his brother's notability so that's a Delete also. -- HighKing++ 17:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Struck the !vote above. There is ample evidence of notability in various books as pointed out by JimMillerJr below (and make sure you spell the name correctly!) -- HighKing++ 11:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both Finding sources on these two is not difficult, but stitching it all together will take some effort. See here and here for the first couple I could find. I will continue to work on these as I have time. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT applies given it's simply a business listing complete with the sources being business announcements, mentions and all similar; we would never compromise with accepting advertising even if someone "liked the article". SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lack of substantial coverage to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    1. Hyland, Anne (2016-01-29). "Paul Bassat's journey from start-up whizz to venture capitalist". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      The future is where Paul Bassat says he lives too much. "The restless person thinks about the future, which is the mode I'm in," he says. "I'd like to be more in the present and less in the future."

      ...

      Bassat, a venture capitalist, was a co-founder of SEEK, the world's largest online employment business by market capitalisation. He created it with brother Andrew and friend Matthew Rockman, of the Rockmans women's fashion family, in 1997 – just two years after Amazon and eBay were born. Back then Bassat was a 29-year-old lawyer-turned-entrepreneur in awe of the possibilities of the internet. He had a cracker of an idea for a jobs website and set out on an exhausting adventure that eventually made him and others rich.

      ...

      Bassat left SEEK five years ago, stepping down as co-chief executive. Now he's one of the wealthy men who invests money with hungry entrepreneurs, who remind him of himself. But Bassat isn't just any venture capitalist; there are plenty of them. He's the best-networked venture capitalist in Australia, and the most influential.

      While not a household name, the 48-year-old co-founder of Square Peg Capital has the ear of the country's uber rich and politicians, among them the innovation-obsessed Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. His clout stretches beyond these shores into Israel and Silicon Valley, the latter the command centre for global innovation. He can easily organise a meeting with global technology giants such as Tesla or Uber, or one of the world's biggest venture capital outfits, Andreessen Horowitz, which helped build Facebook.

      ...

      Bassat and wife Sharon, a former teacher, have three late-stage teenagers.

      Bassat and his two siblings, Andrew and Sally, all became lawyers. Only Sally, who lives in Israel, remains one. Bassat's mother, a Holocaust survivor who as a child emigrated from Poland, worked as a lawyer. His father, who was born in Egypt and came to Australia as a teenager, was an IBM executive. Bassat wasn't interested in technology as a kid; he liked books. And when the germ of an idea that would become SEEK came to him – while standing at a house auction in Melbourne in the 1990s – he had to use his father's computer for the research.

    2. Williams, Pamela (2013). Killing Fairfax: Packer, Murdoch and the Ultimate Revenge. Sydney: HarperCollins. ISBN 1460700171. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The book notes:

      The Bassat brothers, Paul and Andrew, and their friend Matthew Rockman had built SEEK from a daydream. By 2003, five years after its launch, it was a serious company, worth $100 million, driven by the boom in online advertising.

      ...

      Andrew Bassat was the prime joker; his brother Paul was deemed the adult supervision. How embarrassing if they turned up at Packer’s office and it was a SEEK practical joke. Finally they rang back to check, to find that James Packer did in fact want to meet them.

      ...

      Andrew Bassat, 31, was a management consultant at Booz Allen. He was not an internet user but they were both excited to find advertising already online. They would spend nearly six months creating a plan.

      The book extensively discusses Seek's founding and Paul and Andrew's role in the company's founding.
    3. Williams, Felicity (2012-06-12). "Bassat is a single-minded CEO". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      IF ANDREW Bassat is worried about flying solo, he certainly isn't showing it.

      The Seek chief executive will sit alone at the helm of the online job ads business when his brother and co-CEO Paul officially steps down on June 30 to pursue other interests.

      His departure marks the end of one of corporate Australia's best-known - and most formidable - family duos.

      But Mr Bassat appears determined not to slow down now he's a lone operator, as the months since his brother's resignation in October demonstrate.

      ...

      Seek was born in 1997 out of Paul's frustration with searching through newspaper classifieds for a house.

      Mr Bassat wasn't even an internet user then, but Paul's experience highlighted the potential of online ads to the brothers.

    4. Lindsay, Nicole (2010-10-14). "Paul Bassat seeks new direction". Herald Sun. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      AFTER almost 13 years at the helm of job search website Seek, Paul Bassat has decided to throw in his own job.

      Mr Bassat's resignation takes effect from next July when his co-chief executive - brother Andrew Bassat - takes on the top job solo.

      Paul Bassat, 42, will then take a year off before rejoining the board as a non-executive director in 2012.

      But as for what he will be doing during his gap year, he still doesn't know.

      ...

      The corporate lawyer Bassat brothers and Matt Rockman started Seek in the late 1990s, backed with seed funding from Mr Rockman's hotelier father, Irvin Rockman.

    5. Martin, Rebecca (2014-12-14). "Seek a house, find a job". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      In 1997, Paul Bassat was trying to buy a house. Standing at an auction, completely frustrated by the process, he figured that there had to be a better way of finding a house than through the newspapers.

      His original idea was to develop an online real estate classifieds business.

      Paul, then 29, took the idea to his brother Andrew and they started researching the main classified markets - real estate, cars and employment. Deciding the employment classifieds market was the best option, they went, with business plan in hand, to look for funding.

      Melbourne businessman Matthew Rockman and his father Irvin, who were clients of Paul's in his previous career as a lawyer, loved the idea and fronted up the cash. Matthew also joined the team, heading up marketing and sales.

    6. Smith, Matthew (2014-07-21). "SEEK's Andrew Bassat takes aim at 'gutless' CEOs". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      Chief executives and executive boards are not doing enough to capture the growth opportunities at their doorstep, according to Andrew Bassat , co-founder and CEO of online jobs marketplace SEEK.

      Fear of the repercussions of failure among Australia’s corporate leaders could be the biggest barrier stopping companies and investors from capitalising on the growth associated with the rise of Asia’s middle class, Mr Bassat said.

      He added that short term-focused remuneration likely inhibits CEOs and executives from taking the risks required to get a foothold in the highly competitive and emerging growth region.

    7. Raz, Gali (2013-11-25). "Andrew Bassat Wins The EY Australian Entrepreneur Of The Year Award". Jewish Business News. Archived from the original on 2017-02-14. Retrieved 2017-02-14.

      The article notes:

      Andrew Bassat graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Science from the University of Melbourne as well as a Bachelor of Laws degree from Monash University. Andrew and went on to complete his MBA in Business Administration degree from Melbourne Business School.

      After completing his University education Bassat went to work as a solicitor at Corrs Chamber Westgarth one of Australia’s leading independent law practices, leaving them to become a management consultant in the Australian offices of Booz Allen & Hamilton, an American technology consulting firm. While he was with Booz Allen & Hamilton, Bassat found himself working on a wide and interesting range of strategic assignments in conjunction with some of the Australia’s leading corporations.

      Bassat left Booz Allen & Hamilton, to go into business with his brother Paul in September 1997 assuming the role of Executive Director of Seek Limited.

      When Paul left to form his own company in 2011 Andrew assumed the role of Chief Executive Officer of Seek Limited.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Andrew Bassat and Paul Bassat to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both – Per a review of available sources in online searches, both of these subjects meet WP:BASIC and qualify for standalone articles. However, another option is to merge the content to Seek Limited. See also: WP:ATD-M. North America1000 05:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seek is pretty big company and these guys not only founded it but continue to run it (at least one of them anyway). And regardless of that, Cunard makes a very good case for them both meeting the WP:GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jiansheng Chen[edit]

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

A single event that is largely of local interest. Deletion nomination per WP:NOTNEWS. —Non-Dropframe talk 04:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I could find several mentions of the death in international media, but the lack of more than a passing mention just doesn't seem to meet WP:NOTE. It doesn't help that the article itself fails to specify any reasons for notability (such as any controversy that may have been caused by the cause of death). felixphew (talk | contribs) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused what a "passing mention" is. All of the articles I have seen are detailed articles with several paragraphs. A "passing mention" is when you have an article that lists the 12 people who were murdered in Virginia today and one of the 12 is Jiansheng Chen, with no further details. --B (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination and WP:ONEEVENT - Arjayay (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Sad event but no lasting notability or significance. AusLondonder (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's original author left the following comment on the Wikipedia talk page rather than here in the discussion. —Non-Dropframe talk 21:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The shooting of Jiansheng Chen is a civil rights issue. What do you mean by "of local interest"? How much did the security guard company pay you to nominate the page for deletion? I'm y.j. (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm y.j. I think you might like to familiarise yourself with WP:NPA and WP:AGF before striking and apologising for those comments. AusLondonder (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absurd accusation. Don't take things personally, its just that Wikipedia doesn't make an article for every single crime story on the news. Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: far from being "largely of local interest" this has been reported worldwide. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply to events. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the story has been picked up by CBS News and NBC News nationally. This seems to go well beyond a local news story. --B (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with the other page "Jiansheng Chen". Thanks to another editor's help, I have plenty evidence of significant local coverage (the Virginian Pilot), national coverage (NBC, CBS [2][3]) and international coverage ([4][5][6][7][8][9][10]). This strongly suggests that the content deserves to be kept in one way or another. The victim was Chinese and spoke almost no English. That added more complexity to the seemingly odd killing by certain security force and is bringing more attention from national and international coverage. SlowSuperMom (talk) 03:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's international coverage for this. Not enough to support an individual article for the deceased person but definitely enough to support an article for the event. Exemplo347 (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The amount of coverage alone is not enough to justify keeping the article. To justify keeping an article on an event, we need to establish some significance and impact. WP: NOTNEWS states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion."[emphasis added] What we have here is a typical crime news event which is used to fill air time and print copy because it is "odd" (to quote SlowSuperMom) but which is forgotten a week later because it has no real impact on anyone not directly involved, and because every week someone is shot in their bathtub or run over by drunken joyriders or permanently scarred by falling face first on a box of thumb tacks. Unusual deaths just aren't that unusual, and they certainly aren't notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shooting was on January 26 and People wrote about it on February 7 ... so it hasn't been forgotten about in a week. --B (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • "forgotten a week later" is a figure of speech; my meaning was not that such a news item is forgotten in the exact time span of a week, but that it is forgotten as soon as another news item comes along to replace it. An event being reported on 12 days after its occurrence is hardly an indication of lasting significance.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and WP:NOTNEWS, not enough information to have it's own article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically routine news at this point. No evidence of lasting impact. Several of the SPA accounts involved in writing the article keeping saying it's "potentially" the next "Treyvon Martin", but there's no evidence of that. -- ferret (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today (February 14), there was more news about it - [11][12][13] - three congressmen from the metro area issued a statement. There was also news yesterday about the change.org petition seeking "justice" in the case [14]. I don't claim this to be the next Trayvon Martin or any such thing - but I do claim that it meets our notability requirements. --B (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Pokémon Go § Criticism and incidents, which presently has no mention of this incident that has received national coverage in the U.S. (People, NBC News, CBS News) and in many other areas of the world ([15], [16], [17], [18]). The incident is recent, but has continued to received coverage in reliable sources right up to this very day (The Virginian Pilot, WTKR, The Roanoake Times, etc.) This suggests that this incident will continue to receive sustained coverage. At the very least, this can be merged per WP:ATD-M. North America1000 05:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm opposed to any merger to Pokemon Go, which appears to be little more than a bait headline and not core to the shooting or its subsequent coverage. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an incident that occurred while a man was playing Pokémon Go and was shot to death doing so. This section of the Pokémon Go aricle also has similar content in it, about a person in Guatemala shot and killed while playing the game and another person accompanying the person who was shot in the foot. I view this as a valid merge relative to content already in the merge target. North America1000 17:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how WP:ONEEVENT relates to events. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself, while unfortunate, isn't notable per WP:NOTNEWS, and to the extent arguments have been made that the event is notable for the reason that the victim himself possessed one or more particular attributes (age, ethnicity, being a Pokémon Go player, etc.), I'd argue that WP:ONEEVENT applies as well. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I'm still more swayed by the ongoing international coverage, though. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is NOT just another "typical crime news event", rather it represents one of historical incidents where Chinese Americans continuously being systemically discriminated against. --Vincent_wk (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the evidence that anything about this case was racially motivated? - GB fan 23:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. No lasting notability. If this has impact on something else, then that's where it should be described. The other keep arguments seem to center on this being "widely reported", but that only fails WP:NOTNEWS. It may be used as source material, but that's not sufficient for a stand-alone article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: the rent-a-cop has been charged with murder [19][20]. I'm not sure that some who are citing WP:NOTNEWS have actually read what it says. I keep reading it over and I'm not seeing how this article violates it at all. Just because something is a news story does not automatically exclude it from coverage. Most events that happened in the last few hundred years and about which Wikipedia articles have been written were, in fact, covered in the news. We don't have articles about routine things like individual sporting events (unless they are famous in some way) or trivia like the Microsoft First Quarter 2017 Dividend or February 17, 2017 traffic accident on I-64 in Richmond, VA, but this doesn't seem to be trivial like that. The coverage of this shooting has continued for several weeks now and has been picked up by national and international media. I'm not sure why we're getting scared off just because it's also a news story. Yes, there are a lot of SPAs promoting this article, but I think it's worth taking a look on the merits. --B (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is really simple - the GNG has been met. Will people stop muddying the issues and read the GNG for themselves? This really isn't a difficult AfD discussion! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • B - No one said that being in the news excludes it from coverage on Wikipedia. The reason people are citing WP: NOTNEWS is because the article subject is a clear instance of something which is reported in the news but has no enduring significance.
    • Exemplo347 - You should take a look at WP: GNG yourself, as it clearly indicates that meeting the GNG is a necessary, not sufficient, criterion for having an article on a subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list of things that NOTNEWS lists are wholly unrelated to the subject of this article - "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The idea is that we don't have articles on trivial junk just because there was a wedding announcement in the newspaper and we don't turn celebrities' articles into a tabloid-like list of their every day lives. It's not a prohibition on a news item being considered notable. And I think you're underselling WP:GNG. WP:GNG says that a topic is presumed suitable for an article if it meets the criterion. That's a much stronger statement than to just say that it's one of several requirements. The rebuttable presumption is that the topic is notable. We accept that we don't need articles about Justin Bieber's trip to the grocery store or my (assuming I'm a non-notable person) wedding or death - that's WP:NOTNEWS - but NOTNEWS is not a blanket prohibition on otherwise notable things that were covered in the news. --B (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, no one has said items reported in the news are banned from coverage, and creating straw man arguments for the opposition just demonstrates a lack of confidence in your position. Trying to construe "presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article" as "incontrovertibly suited for a stand-alone article, to the point where all other Wikipedia policies must be ignored" is a better effort, but frankly predictable, and completely undone by the fact that right in the lead section of WP: GNG it lists two necessary requirements for meriting an article. One is the GNG, the other is WP: NOT. Finally, claiming that this article doesn't fall under NOTNEWS because it's not listed among the specific examples is just weak.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm confused. On one hand is a guideline that says the topic is presumed to be notable. On the other hand, there is a policy that doesn't say anything to the contrary and gives examples that are wholly unrelated to the subject at hand. This article does not resemble any of the examples given in WP:NOTNEWS and you haven't explained how it does meet any of the rules in WP:NOTNEWS. Above, you quoted "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", but the very next sentence explains what "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" is talking about - "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities". This is nothing like that. --B (talk) 13:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now as per WP:RAPID. I was troubled by the fact that sources on the page are local (Note that WaPo is a regional paper) and the NBC stories are on NBC Asian. The anglophone Asian press, however, has picked this story up and run with it as though it is a race crime, although coverage I looked at does not support this. However, The AP now has this: "Security guard charged with murder in Chesapeake shooting", picked up by a local paper [[21]] Trial will bring out issues such as was the guard or the company that hired him negligent, and whether they is anything to the support the idea that victim was targeted because he was Asian. Suggest that we close as 'No consensus for now and revisit in 6 months. Trial may also clarify whether there is an appropriate merge target.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the Washington Post has covered this (search here: [22]), but only as local news. Not seeing that any national American publications have picked it up (except in Asian interest editions). Still thinking we should punt and revisit in 6 months.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a point of information, Washington DC is about 4-5 hours away from Chesapeake, depending on traffic. Chesapeake is not in the DC metro area and the Washington Post does not routinely cover "local news" from Chesapeake - see https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia/ for the Virginia counties they cover as "local" news - all of these are in Northern Virginia, whereas Chesapeake is in the Southeastern corner of the state. --B (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is, the articles are clearly labeled "Local News" at the top of the page. Like other American big city dailies, the Washington Post covers nearby regions as local news, printing a different set of "Local News" in each of several regional editions. Stories about a "local" crime in Virginia (or a local election, a celebration, etc.) will not appear in the copies of the paper delivered in Maryland or in the District, and visa versa. Of course, everyone can see them online.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as appropriate The two things that keep this from being a tragic yet still routine everyday shooting are the reported but not quite flushed out Pokémon Go connection, and the fact that Mr. Chen was Chinese and didn't speak English. The best solution is to merge the info into any appropriate other articles. My rationale for a merge is how the article of school shootings in the US lists all the shootings, but you'll notice they don't all have their own articles, despite an amount for many similar to that for the Chen shooting. In Chen's case, the Pokemon connection is the strongest, because it explains why he was at the location where he was shot, and perhaps why his behavior may have seemed to be suspicious to the guard. The Chinese and non-English speaking angle only becomes significant (IMHO) if it can be shown that those attributes contributed to his being shot. Without any evidence of the shooter having a racist history, and even then, that connection is going to be very hard for any prosecutor to prove. Plus, even if it could be shown to be a factor, I can't find a niche US hate crime attacks article where a merge might work. I previously put the info about Mr. Chen in Pokémon_Go#Criticism_and_incidents but undid the revision when I realized I might be going against consensus, per the talk page. If the info does eventually wind up there, I'd redirect this article there. Timtempleton (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE. DrStrauss talk 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where in WP:ROUTINE do you find "murder case that spawns a month of national news coverage"? Yesterday (February 23), NBC News (national) had another story about the case - [23]. (There have also been near daily stories in the local media for the locality where the shooting happened, as well as international Asian media because the victim was a Chinese immigrant.) WP:ROUTINE discusses things like wedding announcements, and one-and-done type stories where someone is the subject of a human interest story and never heard from again. Coverage that goes on for a month in the national and international media is hardly "routine" nor just a local news item. --B (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about WP:EVENTCRIT, bullet 4? Where is any evidence of "enduring significance"? It's simply an ongoing criminal investigation. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you distinguish between "an ongoing criminal investigation" from an event of "enduring significance"? For most crimes, the local news media reports it when it happens and then, maybe, later when someone is arrested. They don't discuss it on the intervening days. Congressmen don't issue statements about it. People don't hold protests about it. The national and international media don't report it. --B (talk) 22:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per previous comments. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Article cites 7 sources, at least some of them from nationally or globally recognized outlets. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about relation to Pokemon Go A merge into Pokemon Go is not really appropriate as it has not been established whether the game was responsible for the incident. We do not merge information unless there is some link. There have been similar incidents such as Man killed while playing 'Pokemon Go' at San Francisco park but they have not been added to the article. Adding every event tangentially related to Pokémon_Go#Criticism_and_incidents makes it coatrack. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree ... he could have been sitting in his car looking at Google maps or talking on his phone and the incident would have been the same - this isn't really in the same vane as the incidents where people are playing Pokemon Go and walk into traffic without looking - the problem here was not Chen's lack of concentration on the task at hand. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 13:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ^^ Duplicate ^^. And I'm not sure you're reading the general notability guideline if you think that this guideline supports deleting the article. The argument for deleting is that it should be deleted in spite of the GNG - I don't see anyone claiming that there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck duplicate !vote above, only one allowed, but feel free to comment all you'd like. North America1000 18:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another day, another news article about the case - [24]. --B (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. - TheMagnificentist 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any particular comments or just comments in general? At least a few of the above comments don't agree with deleting. It's not a vote and it is usually a good idea to explain your reasoning. --B (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like what the nom said "A single event that is largely of local interest." - TheMagnificentist 22:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are the national and international media covering an event "largely of local interest"? --B (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 22:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George P. Broussard[edit]

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

This is another Billy Hathorn Louisiana biography without notability. The subject fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. The LA Secretary of State link only confirms his wife's voter registration and Find a Grave is self-published so this article rests on only one source, this book. While that source might be reliable (the entry indicates it's based on the family's documents, not academic research), it's not independent and doesn't connote notability. The newspaper citations are mere mentions. I don't see notability here. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Since Wikipedia is a paperless encyclopedia, and has plenty of room on the servers, the bar for notability focuses on the availability of reliable sources to allow readers to verify that a topic is not a hoax.  The nomination makes it clear that the creator of the article is the target here, but civility remains one of our fundamental principles, and had this article been G5 eligible, G5 does not require AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - when a regional historical association deems someone notable, I find it hard to disagree. Also, historians often use information from an individual's family in there work, so I don't see how that is non-academic. That said, this subject was an officer of the Attakapas Historical Association, which casts some doubt on independence. On the other hand, the editors of the Louisiana Dictionary of Biography[25] are, I think, Carl A. Brasseaux & James D. Wilson, Jr. (of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette) and Glenn Russell Conrad; and their inclusion of Broussard in the book seems to be enough to me. Smmurphy(Talk) 17:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not the Louisiana encyclopedia, and nothing about Broussard is notable beyond very local Louisiana issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "World renowned" researcher. One of 88 veterinarians in category "American veterinarians", consistent with articles on other veterinarians, some of whom are also politicians and athletes. 64.134.58.105 (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'One of only' is not a recognised inclusion criterion - or can you provide a link? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should be grounded in Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No evidence of notability. Write-up by local historical society is not sufficient. I question the one possible claim to notability: "conducted important research on the diseases of anaplasmosis and brucellosis". There is no evidence of this. There are thousands and thousands of journal articles on these diseases and none are authored by this person.Glendoremus (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is evidence of notability.  Local historical societies are accepted by WP:GNG.  I don't know why the article calls the research "important", but the reliable source otherwise sources the statement.  As for 1000s and 1000s of journal articles, were you by any chance looking on the internet?  How many journal articles from before 1977 are available on the internet?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no notability or significance (except for the vague "world renowned" claim) found in this WP:MEMORIAL-toned article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MEMORIAL states, "Memorials. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements."  Significance is a speedy deletion criteria, and there is evidence of notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Article appears to be a cobbled construction of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which fails to demonstrate any notability. The assertion of significance as a "world-renowned" veterinarian is not made by the news source, but rather is an offhand remark by an acquaintance/colleague in an article about someone else entirely. No evidence of this alleged "renown" is found in reliable sources, such as scholarly or trade journals. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is about changes in the veterinarian industry in Iberia Parish in recent decades...the state’s second licensed veterinarian, Dr. J. Arthur Goodwin trained three people from the late 1930s to the late 1960s, those being Dr. Harold Reaux, Dr. George Broussard, and Dr. A.A. Woodburn.  The reliable source reads, "Broussard was a world renowned cattle practitioner, he said..."  The "he" is identified with the sentence, "Dr. Roger Boughton, owner of Iberia Animal Clinic on Center Street, started practicing in New Iberia in 1967 under Woodburn and worked with him for nearly 20 years."  When an interviewee is speaking as a subject matter expert, that material is secondary, thus goes to WP:GNG.  WP:notability states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR means reporting stuff that has not been published.  Since your post doesn't give any examples of WP:OR, its claim is not verifiable.  As for WP:SYNTH, given A Dictionary of Louisiana Biography, the question remains as to what is being synthesized.  As for the article failing to demonstrate any notability, notability creates no content requirements...notability is defined outside of Wikipedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Broussard doesn't pass WP:SOLDIER. If he passes some other standard, such as veterinary medicine, editors from such a group, if one exists, would need to weigh in.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A topic can be notable under WP:GNG without editors from special interest groups weighing in.&nbs; See the lede of WP:Notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cant see anything of note in the article other than the claim "world renowned cattle practitioner" which is cited to another local vet.the man himself so hardly an independent source. MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Daily Iberian article says that Dr. Roger Boughton called Dr. Broussard "a world renowned cattle practitioner". Dr. Broussard did not say that about himself. Dr. Broussard was declared notable in 1988, eleven years after his death, by the Louisiana Historical Association.2602:304:B23B:54B0:A8BA:743D:9853:C4BE (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The five previous "Delete" recommendations have all been debunked. Subject is notable through Louisiana Historical Assn.71.41.136.211 (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For all the kerfuffle over whether the Dictionary of Louisiana Biography automatically makes a person notable (show me where that aligns with the general notability guideline?), I don't see any discussion of significant coverage. And no, The Daily Iberian is a local paper, and the reason they added "he said" is because the superlative of Broussard as "world-renowned" isn't settled, but a quote from a local vet. As it would be irresponsible for the paper to claim Broussard is "world-renowned" based on a local vet, so it would be for us. If Broussard is world-renowned, the time to see the sources has already passed. The only precedent we need to follow here is sourcing. (Also Findagrave is user-submitted/unreliable. All of those links should be removed.) czar 16:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic “DomWan” Durham[edit]

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

Non notable person. No reliable sources provided to establish WP:Notability. Google news search returns only one hit ([26]) that just mentions him in passing. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chidush[edit]

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

This is perhaps more suited for Wiktionary, and indeed novella is in the dictionary. As it stands now, this article is unsourced, non-notable and not even written correctly. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Agree with nominator that this belongs in Wiktionary. Yoninah (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NAD and it definitely does not even meet WP:GNG, as its just a definition of a word. - GalatzTalk 15:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ONLY when Wiktionary has the entry. Keep per below L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an encyclopedic concept covered widely in talmudic and other halachic literature in Hebrew, that suffers from a rather clear systemic bias. Book length coverage in English includes Torah Study: A Survey of Classic Sources on Timely Issues, which includes a chapter on the topic that is chock full of sources. There are ample sources available as seen from searches on the word in Google Scholar and Google Books, which barely touch the surface of material available in Hebrew on the topic. This is a crappy article for an encyclopedic topic that needs expansion, improvement and better sourcing, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: So you don't think it belongs merely in the Wiktionary? Just wondering L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's note:
I do not feel entitled to a vote. (but)...
Would prefer to bring it up to standards
This article has been nominated for a quick demise. Meanwhile it is being discussed.
Although it's discussion may or may not be considered a conversation, my OR (Original Research) on this is:
see Conversation,
which says "if permanency or the ability to review such information is important, written communication may be ideal." This seems to be in :contradiction to the "topnote" that says "written exchanges are usually not referred to as conversations."
My marketing clause? "Shape it, don't drape it" (i.e. don't bury it). Pi314m (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • author at bat: Per (above) "Keep" comment, seeking "expansion, improvement" I've added a new section: Why is Chidush important Pi314m (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pi314m your addition, like most of the article, appears to be an argument to convince the reader why chidush is important. ::This does not read like any other Wikipedia article, as it is not written in an encyclopedic fashion, describing the topic rather than propounding some kind of argument or trying to persuade the reader about something. There is also a lack of understanding of English grammar in the presentation. Yoninah (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopaedia Judaica (Keter Publishing House Ltd, Jerusalem, Israel, 1972) has coverage from page 464 to 468, and Wiki is even contemplating deletion? What are all the Wiki policies about if not to describe "how to"
First this was supposed to go in Wiktionary. Then it was deemed non-notable (as if all the book titles with the word Chidush, Chidushei, Chidushim didn't make it notable). It was described as "just a definition." The same could be said about words like Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, which in some places today they don't even rate being called a word - think STEM. Nuff said? Just a few more (words).
Wiki articles wearing hats, hatnotes, etc. are applenty. Some are tagged as stubs, others go on and on and on... Eef me Anglish iz innerproperiately adikwit, than bye know someone wood hav simply rewrotten itt an brung it up too standerd, no? Pi314m (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • author at second base: Now that the article has 26 references, including two encyclopedias
    • one of them in the public domain (used 3 times) -and-
    • another (cited twice)
would this article be "more encylopedic" if it were quadrupled in size by just dumping in everything from the Public Domain source (except for the already noted above 3 citations) as ==SOME MORE ABOUT THE SUBJECT==. There are numerous Wiki articles, albeit topped with HatNotes of less than glory, that are minor rewrites of Public Domain texts, and they're not facing discuss-to-delete. Is my comment unfair? To whom? Pi314m (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pi314m: it's very important for you to read the Wikipedia pages mentioned in the welcome on your talk page so you will start writing articles that are appropriate for the encyclopedia. In particular, the lack of sentence case and all-lowercase subheads is rather amateurish. Regarding developing an article about a Hebrew term, please look up other Wikipedia articles; I could offer my own example, Chavrusa. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep plenty of WP:RS on this subject [27]. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify If there are indeed "plenty of WP:RS on this subject" they haven't been added to the article. As it stands now, after efforts from the original author, the quality of the article has actually gone down by being loaded with WP:OR and personal opinions. The added references don't show any sign of significant coverage in RS, being mostly either short or material like blogs and answer websites. There is indication in the search results of possible notability, but that would need to be incorporated and then re-evaluated. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable per WP:GNG, but requires A LOT of work towards following WP:MOS and content guidelines. Will take time, but I'm willing to roll up my sleeves and start. --IsaacSt (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There's some reasonable arguments for merging, but consensus is clearly for deletion as duplicating other existing articles. If somebody wants to mine the existing article for material to reuse, ping me and I'll be happy to restore this to userspace (although, please be aware that if you want to do that, you'll need to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia). 

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar power stations[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Listcruft, just duplicate of List of photovoltaic power stations and List of solar thermal power stations Jklamo (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. --Jklamo (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (strong merge, actually) with the other lists given, and convert this page into a disambiguation. Laurdecl talk 06:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a unneeded duplicate article. Note: Until last months this was a redirect to a disambiguation. Rmhermen (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Because it is duplciate, however, there should be list for both PVcell plants and bird cookers.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 One (U2 song). Nothing sourced to merge. czar 01:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Baby[edit]

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

A one-time performance is hardly notable. If there are no references, delete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or Redirect to One (U2 song). Either way, deletion is not necessary and will inevitably result in it being recreated later. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep especially if someone can add some sources and as Koavf suggests, if deleted it is only likely to be recreated so let's see if it can be saved. ww2censor (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the first user to nominate this for deletion, and I still stand by my original proposal, especially as an editor or many U2 articles. While this does technically meet criterion 6 at WP:BAND, I don't feel that it is enough to establish notability because this entire's "band"'s existance lasted for literally less than 5 minutes, or the performance of one song. –Dream out loud (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). Doesn't need its own article but will make a great subsection there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  13:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). As per Dream out loud, subject is not strictly a "band" in own right, but a "label" applied to members of two other bands. For all of five minutes. Notwithstanding that, and I while I normally try to avoid straw-man type arguments, if this article covered any other band that sang one-song, once-ever, then it would've been deleted long ago. Doesn't need own article. Is at best a footnote/section in the One (U2 song) article. Guliolopez (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:BAND Criteria #6. AusLondonder (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to One (U2 song). Guliolopez hit the nail on the head from my perspective; for me to reiterate his argument wouldn't be a productive use of time or bandwidth. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss World 1956. NeilN talk to me 22:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Cherry[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. She got a bit of additional attention due to a gaffe when she was competing for Miss World 1956: she was accidentally and prematurely given the winner's sash, and then ended up being named first runner-up. This story got some mention in the wake of the Miss Universe 2015 gaffe when Steve Harvey read the wrong name. See e.g. [28][29] --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete being Miss South Carolina USA is not enough for notability, and no show of other notability. Passing reference because of something that had nothing to do with her actions is no reason to have a stand alone article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claims that are not backed by policy are personal opinions, and as such are arguments to avoid (WP:ATA) in deletion discussions.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  As per Arxiloxos, this runner-up was briefly thought to be the Miss USA of 1956, and is still getting attention in 2015. 
  • Wrong venue  There is no evidence of a deletion DEL-REASON here.  If further discussion is needed, the policy place for a content discussion is on the talk page of the article, with DR if needed including RfC.  See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the only claims of significance here are participating, that in itself wouldn't actually satisfy the applicable standards as notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Total elapsed real-time for this contribution is 74 seconds, (06:45:16 to 06:46:30).  So participation is a form of inherited notability?  That's not in any policy, guideline, or essay I've seen.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect may be the right answer here but if so, a better target may be Miss World 1956, where I've now added some text and a couple of sources about the awards ceremony gaffe noted above. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Miss World 1956 (thanks Arxiloxos for adding the info). The subject is essentially known for one thing, the 1956 Miss World placement mix-up. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note  This AFD was closed and reopened, see edit history for details.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 01:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikolaj Oledzki[edit]

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

Contested prod. Player fails WP:RLN as has not played in a World Cup or a fully professional club Rugby league competition. Mattlore (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: He still fails WP:RLN, as he has not played in a fully professional competition as specified there. Mattlore (talk) 19:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At least 10 current members of the Bradford Bulls squad with articles fail WP:RLN due to having only played in the Championship. IMO it may be necessary to review the WP:RLN as things are a lot less clear cut with the new structure in Super League. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because as far as I can tell, he currently fails RLN. He may have played for Poland however, and that *could* allow him to pass RLN depending on the importance of the fixture. So if a source can be provided to show that this is the case, I'd switch to keep. Craig (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, Poland has never played in the Four Nations, European Cup or World Cup. Mattlore (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally consider a WC qualifier to be notable enough. If it's not by RLN standards, it should be IMHO. Also, GNG can also trump RLN in some cases. There's no point getting too much into this now though as I doubt this kid has played any matches for Poland yet anyway. Craig (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poland have also not yet played in a WC qualifier, and you're right that this kid hasn't yet played for Poland so it's a moot point.86.3.174.49 (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rugby is a different sport.Fleets (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there hasn't been a sport called just "Rugby" for a very long time. There's two sports with "Rugby" in their names, Rugby League and Rugby Union, but neither holds the exclusive rights to name "Rugby". Whether indevidual supporters call either sport just "Rugby" tends to determine where you're from. For example, in Northern England, "I'm off to watch the Rugby" almost always means you're going to watch Rugby League. In Southern England, the same term would mean you're off to watch Rugby Union. I guess my point here is that it can be very confusing to people unfamiliar with either sport. – skemcraig⊗ 13:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it has fallen into common usage and shortened from rugby union, not to my liking but that's how it seems. The Australians are more definitive in their usage of the word, but as you say rugby is a more than acceptable term to describe the 13 a-side code. A side point to add further confusion would be that if he did play rugby union, he would qualify by playing in the second-tier of English Rugby Union.Fleets (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 01:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faraun[edit]

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

Does not appear notable. Even a Google search with some additional parameters doesn't give anything useful. The only source is some very obscure book.

The article is generally very poor – see for example the factual error I explained on the talk page.

The only link to it from an article is in the "see also" section of Trpanj, the rest is just various talk pages and AfD/PROD logs. ~barakokula31 (talk) 22:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. According to the article, it is based on WP:ONESOURCE, which suggests the possibility of WP:V issues. A bit of quick Google-ing finds discussion of Faraun as a family name or a clan in Dalmatia, but nothing about the merchants discussed here. Cnilep (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Faraun does seem to be a family name, and, to me, the supposed derogatory origins in the section, Reaction, should be cited or removed. As there is no clear source, I think the rest could be deleted as well. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gill Fielding[edit]

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

The notability of this person was discussed previously at Draft:Gill Fielding and then at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Gill Fielding a year ago where it was decided that she was not notable. Nothing seems to have changed since then which would mean that she is now notable. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG, SwisterTwister, Devopam, Neilho, and SMcCandlish: as participants in the MFD. SmartSE (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, have been unable to find any reviews of Fielding's books from reliable sources (Bridget book reviews popping up didn't help!), minute/non-existent WorldCat library holdings of her books ie. Riches, 1 library, The wealth alphabet, 3 libraries, Solving the Property Puzzle, 1 library, other titles not listed, so doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mere PROMO for non-notable individual.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as promotional of a non-notable (though not utterly unknown) person, unless something substantial turns up and is added. "Was on some 'reality' TV and game shows, is rich, and volunteered for the Chamber of Commerce" doesn't equate to notability. The sources do not show that the subject has really done anything other than been on TV a few times (or if they do, then what this subject is actually notable for isn't covered in the current revision and it is not citing the sources that do show why Fielding is notable by WP standards). Even in a case of "famous for being famous", like Zsa-Zsa Gabor, there are loads of sources treating Gabor in-depth (including the famous-for-being-famous phenomenon). We don't have that here; Fielding's mentioned and credited, and sometimes briefly profiled, in the cited sources, nothing more. I predicted at the February 2016 MfD that a year later this person would not prove to be more notable, and that prediction has proven correct.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 01:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Gholamali[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A web search doesn't turn up much and it doesn't look like the Farsi Wikipedia article is well-sourced either. Nick Number (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bekir Yıldırım[edit]

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

The sources in this article are to various issues of a government gazette that list Mr. Yildirim in promotions lists. A BEFORE search turns up no additional sources. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a judge at the level he served would seem to be notable. Government documents can be used to show a position in the government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the Supreme Court of Appeals in Turkey has 150 judges at any one time, who serve 10-year terms. Despite its lofty name, it's an intermediate-level appellate tribunal. There are literally thousands of living Turkish jurists who have sat on it. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a senior enough judge for an article. However many judges it has, it is the highest court of appeal in the land. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki[edit]

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

Most likely an auto-biography and very resume like. Borderline for CSD G11 but I will take to AfD. Individual likely fails WP:NACADEMIC at this time. Safiel (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from the person who filed two CSDs: I've filed two CSDs and he has removed them. I did not use A or G, I used a custom db reason since it is more to be reasonable. *Xyaena~* (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I declined speedy deletion as the reason given was not valid and I didn't see any valid speedy deletion reasons. The article has not ever been deleted through the Articles for Deletion process, so CSD G4 is not applicable. Article was deleted via CSD A7 on one occasion, but a deletion under CSD A7 does not preclude recreation. The only speedy deletion that remotely applies is CSD G11, blatant spam. While the article does appear promotional, it does not appear to be blatant enough to invoke CSD G11. The best route in this case for seeking deletion is via the Articles for Deletion process, which I have initiated. Safiel (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A BLP of a scientist like this stands or falls on the basis of citation record in GS. In this case it falls. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. He was blocked for these kinds of articles. Delete is the best option. *Xyaena~* (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cara&Co[edit]

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

Blatantly promotional - violates WP:Promo. Rogermx (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Promotional material should be removed, but the subject is notable, with significant coverage in secondary sources. See here, here, here, and here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cwmhiraeth: Perhaps it's a mistake on my end, but I only actually see Cara & Co mentioned in the first link you've posted, and even then it's such a passing mention as to not really be a reference at all. Unless you can perhaps help me understand the other 3 links then it's a Delete from me. Pishcal (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pishcal: The links I give say things like "The most famous stores are ... and Cara&Co." and "The Cara&Co shop (facing page) is one of the new retail outlets." and "Pour les fous de shopping, le magasin Cara&Co vous propose les dernieres tendances des designers Belge, Anglais et Australien." and one in Russian that mentions Cara & Co in the fourth paragraph. In essence they are mentioning Cara&Co as an important retail outlet in Moscow, ie. a notable shop, like M&S in Britain or TKMax. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But are these sources anything more than passing mentions, anything significant enough to deem the store notable and meet gng? I apologize for not being able to read the sources, but from what you say it doesn't seem that way to me. Pishcal (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse[edit]

American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Substance Abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am having a hard time finding in depth discussion of this program or organization from reliable secondary sources. I declined a speedy delete A7 request, but notability seems doubtful right now. Thoughts...? Ad Orientem (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why should an article which originated April 2015, nearly 2 years ago, be on a speedy delete list. If it lasted this long, IMHO it should be given 30 days of being open to serious comment, unless a senior editor thinks it slipped "under the radar" for VERY serious problems, e.g. copyright. The second time I faced a standard-speed 7-day delete I asked that someone please "shape it, don't drape it" (meaning don't bury it).
The topic is serious material, even if the article itself is below Wiki standards. Intentionally not having an entry for this organization, which originated over 4 decades ago and was listed on something published 3 years ago seems below why so many people turn to Wiki - not just correctness, but a sense of wide-ranging coverage of topics.
There obviously is a bug in the Wiki software that even allows something that lasted this long to be eligible for a publicly visible speedy delete, without an administrator getting involved. Pi314m (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This organization, under its former name American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse, is listed in the 2-volume

Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today.[1] and is listed among other American Indian organizations in 1971[2]

  • Comment The article is not on a speedy delete list. It is at Articles for Deletion a venue for the community to discuss articles where there is doubt about whether or not they meet our standards for inclusion. We don't give special privileges to articles because they have been around for a certain period of time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"

It would seem that a better name for the article is "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" since the only text in the article from before I saw it was copied from the https://www.samhsa.gov/tloa government web site describing them.

As for the names "American Indian Committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse" (and its successor "...Alcohol and Substance Abuse" they could be listed as an example of one of the government agency's "federal partners" as per

The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA) and its federal partners provide tribes with technical assistance and resources that help communities achieve their awareness, prevention, and treatment goals. The OIASA is required under the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) to coordinate those resources. The office supports a holistic framework reinforcing the belief that the mind, body, and spirit are all connected to health and that tribes know best how to solve their own problems through prevention activities and community partnerships. Pi314m (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We generally do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion with regards the name of the AfD discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Lawson, Russel M. (2013). Encyclopedia of American Indian Issues Today. ABC-CLIO. p. 551. ISBN 0313381453.
  2. ^ mentioned in a 2015 eulogy: https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/news/native-news/warriors-of-our-time-remembering-john-trudell
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME recommendation for the following reasons:

  • There is a Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA.gov)
  • SAMHSA has an Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse
  • It operates with partners (quote from SMSHSA: "...and its federal partners")
  • The present article's name appears twice in lists of ... (but with no details)
  • The present article names another partner (with substantiating details & reference citations)

Suggested name: "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)" Pi314m (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

re the comment "We generally(emphasis added) do not move articles at AfD w/o consensus since it can create confusion" - I am not the author of the original article. Just to recap:

21Apr2015 - article created by an ID that became RedMarked (no longer a Wiki ID)
2 edits days later - tagged as Uncategorized
next day - renamed from ...Drug Abuse to Substance Abuse (per Fed Govt rename)
30Jan2017 - with no subsequent edits nominated for S-P-E-E-D-Y delete!

At this point (actually the next day) I spotted it and became a good citizen.

Someone goofed. As I've noted above, there MUST be someone who can code enough to verify that an article has been around for two years, and immediately alert a real live admin that... SPEEDY makes no sense; either just delete, after calling in the lawyers, because it's really that bad, or... just block the nomination.

Then look into the question of what needs to be fixed: merge, pad it out with tons of Public Domain text so it looks impressive (I'm joking, I think), or find a way to make it last a bit longer.

Question: can there be concensus to rename the article, to the name of a real live (probably multi-million) DOLLAR-funded government agency/office/department? I proposed one above
at Renaming article to "The Office of Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse (OIASA)"
If a rename is approved, then perhaps more edits, regarding the federal agency, rather than the "federal partner" (the present name of the article) would make sense and help bring this discussion to its next/followup step. Pi314m (talk) 22:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I recommended that Pi314m respect the more common formatting on his talk page here. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still not seeing the in depth coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. The issue is not the name, it's the lack of coverage. Absent sufficient coverage this does not pass WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Also this article is not nominated for Speedy Deletion. It is at WP:AFD. There is no special treatment for articles that don't meet our guidelines because they have avoided detection for a long period of time. If you disagree with our policies and guidelines for deletion this is not the place for that discussion. You are free to raise the issue at WT:DEL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before listing my recommendation, I want to chime in with some reflections of the discussion so far, on the off chance that especially {ping|Pi314m}} might take input from a previously-uninvolved editor. The first thing to make clear is perhaps what should be most obvious: arguments for deleting an article are not articles against the article subject. The vast majority of AfD voters don't know about the article subject and don't actually care one way or another about the subject. They care about the article itself. It's a pretty simple consideration for most: If the article passes the guidelines a procedures, then it stays. Secondly, as has been previously explained and despite repeated assertions to the contrary, there is no current attempt to speedy delete the article. The speedy delete was declined within a day almost a month ago. To be going on about it suggests either a level of having taken offense that drowns out what others are saying or a lack of reading comprehension. In either event, the comments above imply not respecting policies on "ownership" of articles or a conflict of interest. I get wanting to defend the truth, but Wikipedia shows little concern for grand "truths". We do not "make something notable"; we reflect notability that already exists. If there are multiple, significant, independent sources that cover an article subject, the article stays. Of the sources presented, only two even mention this organization. One is a passing mention in an obituary a one of a number of organizations the decedent had been involved in, the other is a short entry in an >800pp encyclopedia. Neither is actually a significant amount of coverage. They verify mere existence, but existence is not a guarantee of notability.
Delete For all these reasons, I must conclude the article should be deleted unless evidence can be produced that it passes the notability guidelines. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the "Tribal Action Plan" section of Alcohol and Native Americans. Not anywhere near enough in-depth coverage for a standalone article. I live in Arizona, where alcoholism among Indians is a huge issue, so I was pretty shocked at the dearth of information on this government agency. Onel5969 TT me 21:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or alternatively Redirect or Rename: However, I am not seeing enough information to keep, so rename is not a good option without more information. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Thahane[edit]

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

Non-notable actor cant find any significant coverage on her I feel she fails BASIC WP:GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 10:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice as Nice production discography[edit]

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

The article for this production team has been deleted, so this should follow as suggested or predicted. DBrown SPS (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello Editors. I created this article after reading and editing the recently deleted Twice As Nice page. Though the discography may not take notability from the group 'Twice As Nice', can it not be made notable by the multiple tracks listed which are considered notable in their own right? Is there anything I can do to improve or save the article? Thanks (Haydon.h. (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing can be done to justify an article which is a discography from a non-notable production company. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Northamerica1000 comment.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FotoArtFestival[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (events) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Bieniecki Piotr (creator) with the following rationale "added links and references". I am afraid that the new references still don't suffice. I don't see a single one that is independnet of the subject and covers it in depth. I see a bunch of primary sources and mentions in passing; the sources are of poor reliability - there is youtube, linkedin, etc. At best, there is coverage from non-notable, niche photography trade journals like Doc!. I checked Polish media and I don't see anything better - at most, I found a very short article ([30]) in Polish Radio. I don't think this is sufficient for this event to be considered notable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that this added source of nationwide portals and newspaper: Wirtualna Polska, Onet, Dziennik Zachodni, and photographic polish portals and newspaper: Świat Obrazu, Foto-Kurier, Fotopolis will be sufficient Bieniecki Piotr (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added more links, including Gazeta Wyborcza (gazeta.pl)- one of biggest journal in Poland and TVP (public Television of Poland ). I hope it is sufficient. Bieniecki Piotr (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. PCoolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
great, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyck Caution[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate biographical information in secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tut (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. There are a few brief biographies in rap magazines, but no significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians, not enough reliable source coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 04:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Skiiiwalker[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tons of results about the topic on Google, can use ref improvement. - TheMagnificentist 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then please add some of the tons of results to that article to establish notability. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss this clarity with regards to WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susantha Ratnayake[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. Whilst there are a number of mentions of the subject in the news, they all seem to be purely as the spokesperson for the company, which he is the chairman of, John Keells Holdings. There is insufficient evidence that he is notable in his own right. Has been tagged for notability since March 2016 with no improvements or references added. Dan arndt (talk) 12:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have added a few sources to the article. FITINDIA (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fitindia the references are simply mentions in passing, or comments on behalf of the company - nothing substantial enough to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dan arndt true but I just thought would add them to the article as it did not have a single source.FITINDIA (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- has held a number of high profile positions including with the publicly traded Ceylon Tobacco Company; the article presently is well cited. I would say passes the expectations for a notable businessman. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - K.e.coffman, the criteria of WP:ANYBIO are fairly clear i.e. the person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times; the person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field; or the person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. All the references cited are merely mentions in passing. WP:BASIC requires 'significant coverage'. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lack of coverage and lack of passing notability guidelines for biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Simply not enough in-depth coverage to show that they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 20:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surfers (talker)[edit]

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

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) Nothing notable in a search of the standard databases (EBSCOhost, PQ, Google Books, etc.) A redirect to talker would suffice, as it's one of the more prominent examples, but was challenged and in any event still has poor sourcing. czar 00:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. czar 00:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, still no significant sources seven years after the last AfD in which the article barely survived. -- Tavix (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional webcomic artists[edit]

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

There are several major issues with keeping this list, which was why I pushed so hard to replace it with webcomics and income, which describes the nature of professional webcomic creation much more meaningfully. I want this list to be deleted for the following reasons: Nearly all notable webcomics and webcartoonists with a Wikipedia article are professional, as are many who don't. It is incredibly hard to source for any given webcomic creator whether or not they do so professionally. There are a lot of webcartoonists these days that may be primarily known by their offline work (like Sam Hiti or Victor Santos), making "professional webcomic artist" more difficult to define. When it comes to purely online works, a lot of highly niche webcomics (like El Goonish Shive and, from what I've heard from the creator herself, Rain) that are created professionally but will likely never reach notability guidelines. Finally, there are sources that have used this list to estimate the total number of professional webcomic artists (like The Boston Globe here), but the thing is: It is impossible to list all of the hundreds of them. ~Mable (chat) 08:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not certain this list needs to be deleted, but if it's kept it does need to be refocused to List of webcomic creators. For reasons Maplestrip pointed out, the professional tag is too vague. It was probably put in to help establish notability, but that is theoretically built into a list if it's blue links only. There's also quite a bit of overlap between physical comics, digital comics, and webcomics. It would also be awkward to breakdown something like The Private Eye. Writer Vaughn had other income during its run, but artist Martin did not. So, would Martin be the only one listed as making it "professional"? Argento Surfer (talk) 21:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would be alright with a List of webcomic creators conceptually, but I don't know how such a list would be meaningfully structured. I personally believe a category would suffice. What kind of information would such a list include? I am also worried that very few people would be interested in adding to it, which is in theory not a reason for deletion, but would in practice be a very unfortunate situation. ~Mable (chat) 21:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Off hand, it would be useful when a creator article would otherwise be an orphan or otherwise underlinked. Outside of that use, I rarely add to lists myself. I saw the category already existed, and thought this would fit under the Wikipedia:CLT umbrella. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with Maplestrip above, in the sense that this list need not necessarily be deleted. We have, after all, somewhere, in the vast Wikipediaverse a template of sort that more or less states that a list is probably incomplete and might not ever be such, so it works. It is, after all, a work in progress, and people will add to it whenever they see fit. The article works. No, strike that, I go keep. --Ouro (blah blah) 19:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ouro: There is no interest in listing webcartoonists who do their craft professionally, though. The subject of this list is about as arbitrary as a List of professional musicians or List of professional video game designers. If the purpose is simply listing all notable webcartoonists, then that would be one thing, but "do you make enough money to live from this" is a whimsical scope. ~Mable (chat) 19:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move it to List of webcomic artists? It sounds like that would resolve most of your issues with it. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (more irritations) How does a third-party source even report whether a webcartoonist is professional in the first place? Aren't these all self-reported one way or another? Like, I mentioned _El Goonish Shive_ above, but who knows, maybe Dan Shive has a side gig which he considers his primary job. It's not like any sources ever talk about him anyway. I could probably ask him on social media whether he is professional or not, and then add him to this list, but what's the point even? That's just showing how indiscriminate this list really is. What is keeping webcartoonists from lying, by the way? I suppose that's what the two sections are about, but if there's doubt in the self-reported ones, why list them at all? Urgh, this list annoys me so much XD ~Mable (chat) 19:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually do with whimsical, and I find it suitable enough to say that Wikipedia can, too. This may be useful for people who are maybe lost in the world or considering a change in their lives, asking themselves whether their talent can be put to good use like this, whether they could live off this; or for research, or just for browsing stuff. And to follow up, why not list all notable webcartoonists, people who draw a lot and are watched by others, why not. And, in truth, without jest, if the list annoys You then You are by all means free to !vote for it being removed. I voiced my considerations here without any references, what I write is very subjective (I don't believe in being objective at all). In the end, somebody or others will more or less decide on the fate of the article, if their covictions are strong enough, but I kind of feel that this, if deleted, will get recreated at some point for the sheer reason that the topic popular enough for others to care that some stuff be listed here that actually tickles them. Just thoughts, really. --Ouro (blah blah) 20:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the rambling, but yes, what you described is exactly what I created webcomics and income for, which happens to list a lot of professional webcomic creators as well in a less random manner. ~Mable (chat) 20:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So why not merge the two, huh? --Ouro (blah blah) 22:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are suggesting a posibly endless list as a section of an otherwise regular article? What would the point of that be? I'm currently busy with getting the article to GA, and I see no point in adding an arbitrary list of successful webcartoonists to it... ~Mable (chat) 10:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just pondering whether it's workable really. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on a generalized list of notable webcartoonists here. I still need to add a lot of American webcomic creators, but it's already far more complete than the list of professional webcartoonists, particularly because it defines a much clearer inclusion criteria. When I move this list to the mainspace, do you believe the list under discussion can be redirected/deleted? @Argento Surfer: @Ouro:
Done, waiting for feedback :) ~Mable (chat) 16:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Will reply in Your talk. --Ouro (blah blah) 23:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Bhatia[edit]

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

Sources do not show how this artist meets WP:NMUSIC. They were in a talent show that lasted one season, but didn't win. A few singles, but nothing to indicate they did well on any music chart. Most sources are primary or have a brief mention, and others have a strong feeling of promotional articles. Not enough to meet notability standards. Ravensfire (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind of a Genius Records[edit]

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

I don't see multiple independent sources that would establish notability. The quality of the sources provided is low; including a video, coverage of artists with no or passing mentions of the record company itself, releases etc. I am not convinced that any of the sources are fully independent of the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH . See also WP:ORGIND Flat Out (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article has been rewritten and all information in which the sources do not cover the Topic 'Mind of a Genius Records' have been removed. Muzr1009 —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Refs 1-3 are not independent of the company, and number 4 is about the artist not the company.Flat Out (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no independent notability established by the present sources, nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milly Kay[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not received independent coverage in reliable Nigerian newspapers. The accolades he supposedly won are all unsourced. I wasn't able to find references to validate said accolades. The News Telegram and News Punch articles look almost identical. Both of the aforementioned references do not appear to be reliable. The News Telegram's About Us page doesn't show the newspaper having editorial oversight. News Punch describes itself as a promotional news portal.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Independent news search only brought up blogs and music downloads and didn't reveal any sort of news or coverage that could be used to establish notability, and as such fails WP:MUSICBIO. Pishcal (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That's wrong as per above delete. I understand Versace reasons, the article lack reliable source, which the editor said the references looks identical. As per above delete Notability also falls under WP:GNG that is why I decided to find reliable source, the subject article has been discussed on some Newspaper which deos not look identical Take a look at The Punch newspaper which does not look identical. As for WP: MUSICBIO the article needs more reference. The subject article has won awards which I saw on TV. It took me a lot of time to find out the realible source because it does not pop up when I search subject aetucle. I believe the article needs improvement because he has been discussed in Newspaper which I provided passes WP:GNG. I will suggest the Tag for Adding Reference should be inserted on this Page, their I can put my best in searching out more references to identify it's WP: MUSICBIO.--Bob276 (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you really consider that article "non-trivial"? Per WP:MUSICBIO, a subject is notable if they have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself." I don't think that article meets that criteria. Furthermore, reading News Punch's page, it says: "Contact us today for your news promotions.", revealing that the article may not be independent of the musician. Pishcal (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough non-trivial coverage to meet the inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darling Illusion[edit]

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

Delete. Article about a term used in a single poem, which asserts but does not source that the term has been reified into a larger concept in literary criticism. And the only "source" cited here completely fails to verify any of the content; it just links to the call for papers to a literary symposium, with zero indication that "darling illusion" is one of the concepts that the symposium was calling for papers on. I'd have speedied this if I could find a speedy criterion to jam it into, frankly. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 03:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decorate. Decorate.[edit]

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

Do not seem to have charted ina recognised mainstream chart or meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question to nom: I'm curious, do you speak the language of the sources? Would you please review the available sources? — Sam Sailor 02:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak the original language of the sources but the computer translates them reasonably well into English. Boleyn (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. by nominator Boleyn. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 13:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cruising Association[edit]

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

I couldn't verify its notability. If it is truly international then it would be notable, but appears to be UK based with the odd member from elsewhere and with information on other places. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Founded in 1908; 116 years ago (1908), and still existing, significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources about this organization is available to pass WP:GNG. A few references have been added. The article does need some serious pruning. — Sam Sailor 09:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Withdraw nomination per Sam's comments. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

75 Ark[edit]

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

Only mentions in directories used as sources Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - What? There is a cover-story article at CMJ. How is that only a directory mention? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
May have mixed this one up with another article. However there is only a single source. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep label has six notable artists, CMJ cover story Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ramy[edit]

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

Previous AfD was closed because of copyvio. The current version no longer meets G12 as far as I can determine but the reasoning still stands. SoWhy 11:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps it's an issue of sources being in other languages, but I only found a few sources mentioning the guy ([32] [33] [34]) and even then they don't seem too reliable. Certainly not enough to establish any sort of notability. Pishcal (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (Canada)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this article's deletion: The article has been revised and no longer appears as a promotion of the service. The article is objective and only provides factual evidence without any "buzz" promotional words. The article is also notable. A nationally distributed cable service in Canada is notable. Precedent alone, there are numerous other articles on Canadian cable channels. Also, there is a sufficient number of references in the article that substantiate its notability. musimax. (talk) 23:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was quite curious when I noticed this on my Bell Fibe channel listing a while back, especially because they do carry some US college football -- an interest of mine -- which doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. Anyway, that bit of personal trivia aside, as a national sports cable channel in Canada, it would meet WP:BROADCAST. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Easily meets WP:BROADCAST by far and none of the nominator's claims this is pure WP:PROMO are found in this article. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for similar reasons as already mentioned (notably WP:BCAST) and that I wrote at the BeIN Sports Australia AfD by the same nominator. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:BROADCAST.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (Australia)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Given the nominator has only written 'advertising' as a reason for deletion I'm struggling to understand the nomination. It is a nationally distributed channel so it meets WP:BCAST and is covered in reliable sources easily passing GNG. I see the article as being written in a neutral tone and it doesn't contain typical advertising traits such as a television guide or links to subscription/sign-up pages. It contains detail on the history of the channel (its former name and operator), detail of its rebranding, expansion and content in line with encyclopaedic tone and layout. -- Whats new?(talk) 21:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you actually read the article? It is in fact not much more then a list of sportrights a dn, in the section "Availability", where you can get it. The Banner talk 22:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course I read it. It is highly usual for articles on cable channels to include programming and availability information. In any event, the topics meets notability as I explained above so there is no basis for deletion. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence for notability from reliable sources is provided. It appears to be advertising only.--Grahame (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in plenty of RS: SMH: [35] [36], The Oz: [37] [38] [39] Trade publishers: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45], international: [46] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whats new? (talk • contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep As with the other BeIN noms, this is a bad faith nom; has obvious heavy pay carriage in Australia. Nate • (chatter) 04:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (USA)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This line of nominations regarding BeIN is WP:BADFAITH. Obviously a notable channel with heavy cable carriage in the US; please improve your AfD choices, Banner. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep once again per WP:BROADCAST. And as noted by Nate, the copypaste hand-wave nomination statement "advertisement" has little chance of success, especially as it's contra policy for cable channels. If this is as much effort as you're going to devote to making a policy based case, it's a waste of everyone's time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for similar reasons as already mentioned (notably WP:BCAST) and that I wrote at the BeIN Sports Australia AfD by the same nominator. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Sports (Spain)[edit]

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

advertising The Banner talk 17:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a national Spanish cable channel. Can't see why this wouldn't be inherently notable per WP:BROADCAST, nor does the nominator any particularly valid deletion rationale. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep "From the 2016/2017 season, Bein Sports will broadcast La Liga and Copa del Rey". The two biggest soccer tourneys in Spain and most of the world. Yeah, this is obvious it's not a fly-by-night operation. WP:BADFAITH, as with the other BeIN noms. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have no real arguments so you start accusing me of bad faith? Poor you, poor Wikipedia. The Banner talk 09:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for similar reasons as already mentioned (notably WP:BCAST) and that I wrote at the BeIN Sports Australia AfD by the same nominator. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: easily meets criteria listed in WP:BCAST for notability. musimax. (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by BethNaught per WP:CSD#A10. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tripat[edit]

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

blue whale copy and paste Bowser0000 (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for [[Tripat][reply]

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inshallah[edit]

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

Minus some unsourced content about the use of the phrase in Islam and Christianity (yes, really) which I have removed, there's not really anything here that does not belong in a dictionary - see WP:NOTDICT. Of course, if there is sourced material about the cultural, religious, etc. importance of the phrase, I'll withdraw the AfD. I assume there has to be some, but I wouldn't know where to begin looking, and I don't read Arabic.  Sandstein  16:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As per other articles like As-salamu alaykum. These are significant religious phrases. The article on inshallah needs some expansion though. Khestwol (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article might need a bit of improving but this is a pretty significant phrase. Don't think it warrants deletion. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve/expand DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded it a bit. The phrase is in fact used by Christians, the removed OR notwithstanding. Eperoton (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that there is plenty of cultural and religious importance to the phrase that it is suitable for an article. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a clearly significant topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a trite phrase it means the same as 'god willing' and we haven't got an article for that either, nor do we need one, and the article has literally zero actually encyclopedic content. The article has failed to go beyond simply defining a phrase and noting that similar phrases exist in other languages and so must be deleted.GliderMaven (talk) 22:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the, from the looks of it, unlikely case that the page will not be kept, a redirect to Glossary of Islam is probably preferable to outright deletion. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Glossaries are encyclopedic, and this isn't. Deletion followed by installing a redirect seems to be perfectly reasonable, otherwise we'll probably get reverts against the result of the AFD. There's nothing I could find to suggest this could ever be a reasonable article.GliderMaven (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The phrase qua phrase is notable, and there are currently at least minimal sources for every section. Clean-up appears to be on-going, but the issues seem eminently surmountable. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this expression is often used, should be kept.  sami  talk 13:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per all user comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasanth Nair[edit]

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

No independent notability from Operation Sulaimani.Social media likes are not equivalent to passing WP:NOTABILITY. Winged Blades Godric 15:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An analysis cum discussion about the sources

A detailed analysis of sources--

  • Ref 1--Gov. site stating that he is an IAS cadre.Hardly garners any notability for the subject
  • Ref 2--A non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
  • Ref 3--Discusses Operation Sulaimani mainly;not the subject.
  • Ref 4--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
  • Ref 5 and 12--Same reference.Lone WP:RS describing the subject.
  • Ref 6--An interview.They hardly vouch for notability.Sre WP:INTERVIEW.
  • Ref 7--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
  • Ref 8--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
  • Ref 10 and 11--That an IAS officer chooses to act in a film is surprising in a country like India and the two articles barely reflect that.Also, the film is yet to release!
  • Ref 13--Another non-notable blog-site.Fails the scrutiny of WP:RS.
Thanks for that analysis, it's much more thorough than is typically found in these discussions. Still, I give the articles about his social media popularity some weight; there are plenty of YouTube personalities who are notable only because of their online presence. The current list of refs is not exhaustive and there are more about him than are currently included in the article. For example -
Those are taken from the previous AFD. It would be a shame if this article is deleted, I really enjoyed reading it and learned something. Also, I'll reiterate that I think if he were not a local official - if he were say, an environmental activist, it would make his work less remarkable and more predictable, but also less likely to be excluded from wikipedia Bangabandhu (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Already deleted at AfD twice. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nomination except the emerging consensus that local level officials don't deserve their own page. I admit that I am not familiar enough with Indian media to know the credibility of the sources cited, but they seem independent, reliable, and not self-published. His initiative at providing food for work seems like it has generated a lot of attention. So that might constitute WP:ONEEVENT? That is unfair. This article should be kept and some of the self puffery and promoting language should be toned down. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangabandhu:-See the analysis of references as above.Winged Blades Godric 04:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bangabandhu: If "Nothing has changed since the previous nomination except the emerging consensus that local level officials don't deserve their own page" then surely that makes it even more definite that this page should be deleted? Incidentally, I don't think there is any such emerging consensus; there has always been such a consensus. He's just a mid-level administrative official. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stop referring to emerging consensus, I was echoing language I'd read on another discussion. I'd misunderstood the conclusion from the earlier AFD's and thought that they concluded keep, not delete and no consensus. Still, I think that Keep is the right decision here. Apart from the reasons I mentioned above, I've encountered many marginal entries about South Asia far more deserving of deletion than this one. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Local officials not automatically meriting their own pages is not an "emerging" consensus; it's a longstanding consensus that has existed for years. There is currently a bit of a skirmish at the low end of the inclusion bar over where the cutoff between notable local officials and non-notable ones should be located — but the basic concept that most local officials aren't notable for our purposes is a longstanding consensus, not an emerging new change to prior consensus. All there actually is right now is a bit of a debate (mostly fomented by you, in fact) about which side of the line a few specific cities happen to fall on, but the basic consensus has always been that most local officials are not automatically presumed notable. The consensus hasn't changed in years — there's some review under way of what does or doesn't actually satisfy the standard, mainly because there are much more concerted cleanup projects under way now than there were in 2007, but the standard itself isn't much different than it was a decade ago. What's changed recently isn't the standards themselves, but the amount of attention we're paying to cleaning up or getting rid of stuff that was never actually complying with them in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sourcing here is strong enough to get him over WP:GNG, and nothing claimed in the article is compelling enough to hand him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a proper GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas Honda[edit]

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

Promotional article for a non-notable company. What little secondary coverage there is is trivial (About one sentence worth in these [47] [48]), with this being what seems to be the only in-depth coverage Pishcal (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reject Deletion

Huh? If you're going to put this article up for deletion, might as well delete the several thousand other articles on small auto companies. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't it the company doesn't exist. This company happens to be the largest motorcycle producer in Pakistan. I absolutely REJECT any deletion. Absolute nonsense...this wasn't a candidate for deletion before I edited it (when the article was a complete mess). Now that I've edited it to some decent quality, it's up for deletion? (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PAKHIGHWAY (talk • contribs) 07:39, February 16, 2017 (UTC)

Just because other stuff exists does not mean that this article does not meet the criteria for deletion. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist because I haven't heard of it, I'm saying that it isn't notable because of the lack of significant secondary sources. If you have sources to prove notability then please provide them. Also please remember to avoid personal attacks. Pishcal (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Largest motorcycle manufacturer in Pakistan' establishes notability. Sources are provided thus keep and improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfarazbaig (talk • contribs) 19:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously a highly notable manufacturer of motorcycles and Honda subsidiary, as proven by coverage of several sources. Satisfies WP:GNG. Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to a google news search is hardly evidence of coverage: I'd appreciate if you could specifically point to reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage: reading most of the articles found in the google news search, the coverage seems mostly trivial - just passing mentions. Pishcal (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "largest manufacturer" is a sufficient claim to notability; the company is WP:LISTED as well. The article is not terribly promotional at this stage; I removed self-citations. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has improved a bit, and I think meets notability for corporations given its status in the national motorcycle industry. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes WP:COMPANY and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trash Doves[edit]

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

I don't think that this article meets the notability guidelines. Ethanlu121 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the subject has significant coverage from reliable sources, and does pass WP:GNG. It needs work, though. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not be hasty - While it's clear that there is coverage from at least slightly reliable sources, this seems to be a case of recentism - just a passing fad. If it becomes anything larger and gets more coverage from more serious sources then I'd !vote for a keep, but if the fad dies down then I might have to reconsider. Pishcal (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've expanded the article a lot, using some of the references above and some I've found while Googling the meme. I feel not only does the article achieve notability (which I believe it did before I expanded it), but now I think it has sufficient enough content to completely warrant its inclusion. Soulbust (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The expanded article demonstrates notability, and has a ton of reputable sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 22:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Okon (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is signed to Akwa United. However, since there are no sources to confirm that he has actually played for them, this does not confer notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a source on the page saying he plays for Akwa United. Article needs some work but I don't think it needs to be deleted. MereTechnicality ⚙ 15:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed !vote to Userify - per comments below. I will say that I haven't read WP:NFOOTBALL. Article should be userfied until he's played or otherwise meets the threshold for mainspace. MereTechnicality ⚙ 18:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - There doesn't seem to be a source saying he has played, only that he is signed by Akwa United. This [49] source says "We hope to start fielding them in our next game after their paperwork wasn't complete on time for them to feature in the match with Bayelsa United,". Suggest a move to user space until a source is found confirming he's played. Gab4gab (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence he has actually played in a fully-professional league (note @MereTechnicality:, being on the roster to a club is not enough, you need an actual appearance) so fails WP:NFOOTBALL, and of course also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DABify. Clear consensus that this shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article, but options are all over as to what to do with it. I'm going to endorse the WP:DAB idea, on the assumption that those arguing for a merge would go along with this. It's not clear there's anything worth merging, but the existing text will still be available in the history if anybody wants it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French Island, Maine[edit]

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

Non-notable uninhabited island. Asserted to have eagles nesting there, but sources only support existence. DePRODded as "Geographical features are notable", but WP:NGEO specifies that "Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist.", and no such information has been shown to exist. NGEO advises "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.", but my earlier attempt to redirect to the (unsourced, possibly not even notable) article on Ellis Pond was reverted. Also something weird/unreliable about size as it's apparently a 3-acre island in a 1.43 acre pond! PamD 15:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ellis Pond. It exists (example source), but not finding much source coverage to qualify a standalone article. Also, Ellis pond is around 920 acres in size (source), not 1.43 acres as incorrectly stated in the nomination. North America1000 17:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was quoting the size from the then current, unsourced, version of Ellis Pond. Thanks for correcting and sourcing the article. PamD 18:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ellis Pond seems reasonable. Glad that an AFD has been productive already in getting some improvement done, which is relatively rare. AFDs are usually a waste of time. This one might not have been necessary either, perhaps it could have been redirected/merged without contention of a PROD then AFD. I am pretty sure that I have redirected/merged a lot of articles, without ever finding AFDs to be useful. --doncram 22:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My attempt to redirect was reverted twice, by the creating editor, so I didn't want to get involved in an edit war. PamD 22:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably needs to be a disambiguation between this French Island, Maine and the one in Old Town, Maine, which has attracted some coverage in relaible sources [50][51] and which shows up in news reporting[52] so is a plausible search term.--Jahaza (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 22:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Petrovic[edit]

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

I can't locate any reliable sources to prove WP:Notability. The sources cited in the article do not have WP:significant coverage. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete created by a single purpose editor so suspect AUTOBIO . Poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage is either not significant or not independent. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence to uphold deletion. The article is held within the required limits to be online.
  • Sources dictate evidence of factual events checkY The article is upheld by some of the most notable names and groups in Australian music including Kerser: one of the biggest names in Australian Hip Hop/Rap. The subject being used within credits in multiple pieces of material provide evidence as to the subject's influence.
  • Use of appropriate resources upheld. The article has been referenced appropriately in accordance with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines of "Citing Sources" that being the use of general referencing whereby a citation supports content but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation. [1]
  • Notability of sources: Incorrect. Sources referenced in this article detail the subject's influence on multiple subjects, groups and persons of whom many are searchable throughout the Wikipedia database and adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. They dictate that notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. [2]. The existence of such sources has been proven.
  • Notability of significance: Incorrect. An unsuitable reason for deletion. The article is held with the parameters of the Wikipedia guidelines. The subject has been a major contributor to some of the biggest acts in Australian rock 'n' roll. Further research is needed on the Australian music scene on behalf of the editors and commentators to get an understanding of the subject's influence.
  • Characterising sources of having a lack of notability: Incorrect Some of the references detailed represent some of the biggest online sources material within Australian music. Tonedeaf is one of the biggest pieces of online material dedicated to bringing viewers news and upcoming events throughout the Australian music scene. Triple J Unearthed is also another highly notable source as it is one of the only radio programs in Australia dedicated to bringing new and independent (not published by a record label) music to Australian listeners.
  • Autobiographical purposes does not warrant deletion. The purposes of the article being accused of Autobiographical does not warrant deletion. In accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines, this article does not hold evidence of exaggerated achievement nor personal high regard. No exaggeration of significance is highlighted. This article appears to be of a neutral nature and simply details factual events regarding persons or groups that do hold significance.
  • Further scrutiny is required for this article to be mandated as inappropriate material and subject to deletion. Therefore the subject of Dave Petrovic still holds as appropriate material. Yahmezzz (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Yahmezzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete - all the refs appear to be passing mentions and nothing here conveys notability.  Velella  Velella Talk   03:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. by BethNaught per WP:CSD#G12. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adair Park Historic District[edit]

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

No good sources Evaruemi (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Adair Park Historic District.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 02:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gedaliah Finkel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: BEFORE did not produce significant coverage in demonstrably independent and reliable sources. —swpbT 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —swpbT 13:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment of "sources" in the article at present w/r/t GNG:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://web.archive.org/web/20131014055511/http://heichalaryeh.org/staff.htm No Institution that employs the subject ~ Very little coverage ✘ No
https://www.google.co.il/search?q=%22%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99+%D7%92%D7%93%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%94%22 value not understood No This is just a Google search, not a source at all No ✘ No
http://www.chareidi.org/archives5765/YSR65arcarlbach.htm ? ? No Trivial mention ✘ No
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/791173/rabbi-gedaliah-finkel/hesped-for-harav-nosson-tzvi-finkel-ztz-l/ ? ? No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

—swpbT 13:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Weak claim of notability, but the sources don't support the claim as thoroughly analyzed above. Nor could I find any sources in a Google search, though there may be some issues of systemic bias here. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. His name is spelled Gedalya Finkel in English. And yes, there is systemic bias. I'll try to look him up in a few books written about the Finkel family. Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • FWIW, the spelling "Gedalya Finkel" doesn't turn up any more than "Gedaliah Finkel" in Google, Google News, and Google Books – just a few trivial mentions, mostly in the context of his brother. —swpbT 13:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the rublic shows we have no sources that could go towards GNG, let alone the required multiple.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to find sources outside of those in the context of his brother, Nosson Tzvi Finkel, or eulogies he delivered for his brother. He is simply not notable per WP:BIO. I am just concerned that the reason an article was developed about him is because he is in the Template:Mir Yeshiva navbox which lists the administrations and staffs of the various Mir yeshivas. His name will remain a redlink there. Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ```Comment```. Did anybody look at the Hebrew Google Search results for his name? "אמרי+גדליה""גדליה+פינקל" and the name of his works? רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I did. I just found the HebrewBooks page for some of his seforim, but no articles about him. Yoninah (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G12). by RHaworth (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyansapo[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guideline. Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girik Malik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG a search on the web turns up a lot of social media site and nothing else of any real importance. Domdeparis (talk) 13:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete visiting research scholars who are described as "young" in the intro to the bio on them very rarely have made the impact in their field to qualify as notable, and there is no indication that Malik is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Culture Worldwide[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable beauty pageant; a search failed to find enough significant coverage about it. The article cites a reference about a "Miss Culture and Peace" pageant (which currently doesn't have an article, although a cursory search suggests that could be notable), although I couldn't find a connection between that event and this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet GNG . Page should be created again after it has attained some level of importance. WikiThreatcontrol (talk) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Failed to meet WP:GNG. --Richie Campbell (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How to Fall in Love[edit]

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

Unsourced stub about a seemingly non-notable novel lovkal (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SIVOP[edit]

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

Fairly obvious piece of spam, translated from the French article which is (he's also been warned about undisclosed paid editing both there; and here. I've a previous incarnation to draftspace to allow the creator to work on it, but instead he just keeps recreating it with different capitalisation, hence bringing it here for a decision. The company itself almost certainly does meet notability requirements, but every incarnation of the article thus far has been far too promotional to be viable as a Wikipedia article.  ‑ Iridescent 11:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to edit the article so that it will not appear so promotional. Thus, if you can help, it will be with pleasure --Jaberahmad (talk) 11:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the article stands, WP:BLOWITUP. The company ought to be notable, but this article doesn't do the job. The claim to own The Body Shop is totally unsupported; too many of the sources are SIVOP's own website; the language is too promotional ("offering" products comes a close second to Z-list celebrities "welcoming" their babies in my eyes). A good faith {{db-g7}} from Jaberahmad on the article and an undertaking to build the draft & take it through the WP:AFC process seems the best way forward for both the article's development and overcoming Jaberahmad's COI. Cabayi (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Tyler (actor)[edit]

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

Bio of an unremarkable actor (unless you count several small parts in Farrelly Brothers films). PROD tag added and removed, and the puffery -- but not evidence of notability -- has gotten even worse. Calton | Talk 10:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Don't believe he is notable as per WP:ENT. Doesn't appear to have any significant roles. Imdb says he was in 150+ episodes of Days of our Lives but googling "Steve Tyler Days of our Lives" and "Gino (his character) Days of our Lives" return nothing significant. Best non-imdb source I could find was a Wikia article on a minor character he played in Desperate Housewives, which is clearly not sufficient. PriceDL (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable low level actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Justine Paul Show[edit]

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

There's no such as upcoming shows title with this program, according to the article. Kazaro (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily delete as a hoax per both incarnations of this hot mess. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete it was speedy deleted a couple of days ago should tell you all you need to know. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Gamrot[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter - does not meet WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters since he has no top tier fights. I corrected the article's claim he won the ADCC world championship in 2014 in Sofia, since the ADCC championships weren't held in 2014 and never in Sofia. His title was for the European event which qualified him for the 2015 world event--where he lost his first match. In the past that hasn't been considered enough to show notability. Routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet the general notability guidelines. Papaursa (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hard to disagree with points above. Also, looking at the original article writer's contribution's they should have known better. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not come anywhere close to meeting our inclusion criteria for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NMMA.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ALK Airlines[edit]

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

charter airline; no scheduled service; no significant references for notability DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are a large number of other charter-only airlines that exist on Wikipedia, including charter-only airlines which have since gone bankrupt.Pmbma (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the lack of scheduled services is not an issue; what is an issue is the distinct lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Airlines are not intrinsically notable. YSSYguy (talk) 11:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Josh Todd. Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You Made Me[edit]

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

Non-notable album, judging by the lack of references Orange Mike | Talk 06:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectDelete beat me to the nom. There used to be a gold certification as evidence of notability, but as mentioned by Huon there is just no proof of that title (I even found a source from '08 that said "has sold just 14,000 copies"). Primefac (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed !vote per cogent arguments below. Primefac (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If determined to be non-notable, I think this article should be redirected to Josh Todd where the subject of this article is briefly mentioned, instead of being deleted. Deli nk (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does being the subject of a lawsuit count towards notability?Jasper the Friendly Punk (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless that lawsuit has been the subject of significant third-party sourcing. Primefac (talk) 23:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies in Noida and Greater Noida[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIR. No clear correlation between any of the list entries to the area of Noida/Greater Noida and nothing about their importance to the area (most of the articles make no mention of their connection to Noida either). All this article appears to be is a directory of businesses. Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a very clear case of NOTDIR; well spotted Spiderone 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rise of the Robots characters[edit]

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

A list of non-notable characters from two video games, one from 1994 and its sequel from 1996. Clear WP:GAMEGUIDE material, unsourced and filled with WP:OR. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GAMECRUFT#6/WP:GAMEGUIDE. Does not pass WP:LISTN. No sourced content to include in main article(s). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Its just a whole lot of unsourced cruft on some extremely minor fictional characters. The only sources available are only on one specific character, and in both cases, are just humorous "top ten" style lists. Looking around for additional sources, I'm finding very little about any of these character, and none of what I am finding is from reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 towards merging, but that's a discussion for the article talk page. The outcome is definitely not delete, so AfD's job is done here. Kurykh (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ohr Avner Chabad Day School (Volgograd)[edit]

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

Minor school, no evidence of notability. XXN, 23:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 23:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:06, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge for lack of notability as the available coverage falls far short of that required by NSCHOOLS.

    Of note, the widely-attended RFC on secondary school notability closed today with a finding that arguments based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES are not valid at AfD:

    Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community. Therefore, while SO remains perfectly valid as a statement of what usually happens to extant secondary schools at AFD, SO should be added to arguments to avoid in AFD discussions. Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed.

    Rebbing 02:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think thats quite a selective quote from the RFC. It also says

Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG - Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them. If a normal-depth search fails to find any evidence that the school exists, the article on the school should be deleted without the need for a deeper search.

CalzGuy (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them." I assume you and I have both made such a good-faith effort, and the best we've got is the cited post—not nearly enough for any applicable guideline. Cf. GNG ("There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected."); NRVE ("The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity . . . ."). Rebbing 09:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reliable source is referenced in the article to show that the school exists and educates older teenagers. Sufficiently notable as per recent RFC close CalzGuy (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoninah: These schools are all in different countries. Why should they be merged? --David Tornheim (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Article (publishing). Mz7 (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angle (journalism)[edit]

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

Per "Wikipedia is not a dictionary". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Article (publishing). Agree with 'not a dictionary', might be a useful element in the Article article. Gab4gab (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Io games[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it does not meet the WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search revealed trivial results (some include the actually games themselves). The article also might be WP:OR as its only citation has the not in citation needed tag. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions) 05:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete GNG. There was a bit more meat to this before I cleaned it up, but none of it was of any use (misinterpretations of what other articles say, and conjectures). I left it for someone else to evaluate since I've already been involved in some of the many AFDs and speedies on the article creator's recent creations. This one was typical... a dump and run of a few lines to restate the article title and make some vague, often incorrect claims. Meters (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yedha Lee[edit]

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

Not notable person. Known for one time event only. There are no any evidence he's a well known activist. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoambient[edit]

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

No source WP:V verifies the WP:GNG notability of this subject, it is therefore an unsuitable topic for a standalone article. AadaamS (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC) AadaamS (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. slakr\ talk / 01:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheilah A. Coley[edit]

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

cited entirely to press releases and minor local notices. Police chief of a small city of 64,000 not likely to be notable, and no evidence to the contrary is available ‘’’ DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: True, but I think if it were moved to the draftspace instead, whoever made the article could add more reliable sources. AKA Casey Rollins Talk With Casey 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant coverage, including during service as Chief of Police for Newark, NJ, a city of >250,000 and largest police department in the state[53],[54], [55]. Coverage in metropolitan daily for largest municipality in teh state is not WP:LOCAL. Passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eggishorn Newark is only the 67th largest city in the United States. There are 168 larger cities in India. There are hundreds in China. Are you arguing every police chief in every city in the world is notable? AusLondonder (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very broad interpretation of the argument above. I am arguing the first female chief of police in a major metropolitan area (and the more significant measurement is the New York–Newark–Jersey City, NY MSA, the largest in the country), is notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You said "a city of >250,000 and largest police department in the state" AusLondonder (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not mutually-exclusive claims. In 2011, Coley became the first female chief in Newark[56], and also the first female chief in a significant city in the NY-NJ-MSA, the largest MSA in the country.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree that because Newark is nearby to New York all official within it are notable. AusLondonder (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asking your to agree to that, because it has no relevance to what I said. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Edited to add:To clarify, the article is subject to WP:GNG, and significant coverage of this person as documented in independent, reliable sources exists of her tenure as a major administrative figure in a large metro area. that passes GNG by any reasonable interpretation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- "the first female Chief of Police for Newark, New Jersey" is sufficient claim to notability in my mind. The article is advertorially toned, but this can be fixed IMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman Newark is only the 67th largest city in the United States. There are 168 larger cities in India. There are hundreds in China. How can you seriously argue that every single "first" office-holder in every city in the world is inherently notable? What is the cut-off point? AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How many of these cities have had a female chief of police? K.e.coffman (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K.e.coffman Just seconds worth of Googling found Etawah and Lucknow. AusLondonder (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant, in-depth coverage. There is no freebie inclusion for a police chief in a small city that fails our notability guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a well-regarded public servant, but sourcing is limited to local papers and is merely the sort routine coverage that a local Department head will routinely have. True, she is the first black head of this department in this particular city, but we're long way past the point where the appointment of a black or a female or even a black female head of department produces major news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage to pass GNG, and being police director in the 67th largest city in the US is not enough to create notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unconvincing in the applicable standards and, beyond the information here, it's simply not significant for an article. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --http://abc7ny.com/archive/9465866/

http://abc7ny.com/archive/8297584/ https://issuu.com/thepositivecommunty/docs/may_2014nj https://www.yeshacallahan.com/thought-nyc-issue-stop-frisk-newark-nj-even-bigger-issue/ added more significant sources. Natasha609 (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No chance to reach Notability,coverage is very poor ,I fixed for ::@DGG: decision.(SuperstarSS (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)) Sockpuppet !vote struck. Favonian (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on second thoughts; not enough sources to build an NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AusLondonder's comment above. - TheMagnificentist 20:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neethi Taylor[edit]

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

Reason: Unclear notability and inadequate sources. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niti Taylor (2nd nomination); article name change may be to evade this. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Hmm... according to this she seems to likely pass notability guidelines. She played a major role in Kaisi Yeh Yaariaan and was the main character for the first two seasons and declined to go back because she was going to be in Ghulaam, where it looks like she's also one of the major characters per articles like this one. I'm finding some reviews for Pelli Pustakam, although the article links to a 1991 film by the same name. I'll look for more, but it seems like she would pass now. As far as this being a way to circumvent the prior deletion, it's possible considering that the lead sentence uses the other spelling. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to assume good faith and say that it's not an attempt to circumvent the AfD, given that there's press out there that refers to her as Neethi and by other spellings. It's not uncommon for this to happen during translation and they realized the most common spelling at some point prior in the editing process. I also note the first version of the article had her birth name as Neethi, so they might have created it under her birth name. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Upon looking for sources, I found enough to show that she passes notability guidelines pretty firmly. She has a major role in two notable TV series, one of which was the main character, and has been the main character in two films. Both of the two films pass notability guidelines per NFILM, even though one doesn't have an article just yet. She's a main character in a third film, but I haven't researched that one well enough yet to know if it would pass NFILM. In any case, she passes NACTOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thanks for investigating this and for improving the article. As the nominator I am not now pressing for deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ludovic Le Moan[edit]

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

Part of a promotional campaign for the company and its executives; the WP part of their extensive promotion was carried out buy one of our more prolific undeclared paid editors , before they were caught at it and blocked.

There's nothing here that is notable independent of the company (the article on the company is equaally duplicative and promotional--see adjacent AfD.This one is just duplication. The refs. are press releases, or articles about the company that quote him. We need a rule that when we catch people doing this sort of editing , their "contributions" are removed retrospectively. Most will be removed anyway for promotionalism and lack of notability , but it would greatly simplify matters to go straight to the cause of hte problem. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basimba people[edit]

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

The material in the article is unsourced. The references linked to do not support the assertions and claims. There is complete lack of peer-reviewed scholarship on the material. Cartney23 (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 06:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the previews, some of the sources do support claims in the article. There appears to be ample material on the Basimba/Bashimba. That much of the article is unsourced and poorly-written is no basis for deletion - it needs it be cleaned up instead. Greenman (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely needs a good deal of work, but as far as I can tell, this is verifiably a population of people, discussed in academic work. I.e., the group is probably inherently notable in terms of WP's core functions - in much the same way geographic features are presumed to be notable. I may be wrong. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree, google books results give good evidence for GNG. I also agree that it needs some work. I want to point out there is a related page with similar issues, Basimba clan names. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor M. Fuller[edit]

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

Non-notable local commissioner. Was de-prodded without rationale. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they clearly don't pass WP:NPOL. Also, username might indicate either an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY or WP:COI issue. Onel5969 TT me 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL as non-notable local politician and also fails WP:BASIC AusLondonder (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County commissioner is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass on every person who holds it — a county commissioner can clear the bar if he can be sourced over WP:GNG to a broad range of media coverage beyond just the expected level of local coverage, but he is not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. As well, the article was created by "Meckcommish", so there's a clear conflict of interest. And making claims about how big and important the county is does not reify into an inclusion freebie for the county commissioners either — the article is about him, not about the county, so notability has to be shown by coverage of him. There's simply not enough sourcing, or enough substance, here to get him past our requirements. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete County commissioners are not default notable, and the attempts to build up the importance of Mecklenberg County in the article do not change that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diskordia[edit]

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

Cannot find any sources that establish notability. Fails WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 14:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Moises Benabides Dinis[edit]

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

This article does not pass basic WP:ANYBIO standards and all the information found on him emanates from this wikipedia page with no significant coverage of any kind elsewhere (I checked using all of the listed names). The page had a notability tag placed in 2014 but the article creator deleted the tag without any discussion in 2015. The 2 references included have nothing to do with the subject of the page and do not verify the subjects actual involvement with the groups the references are verifying. As well the work seems to be all Original Research. Acidskater (talk) 14:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator and cannot find anything about Joao, John, or Juan Dinis, Dionis, or other possible surnames, or even his neighbor John Harlow on newspapers.com, or any of the usual places. The article states that he was 2nd cousin of Benjamin Musaphia and 3rd cousin of Menasseh Ben Israel, both of whom died a century before Dinis was born - not impossible but definitely odd. The article was written by a user with Harlow in the username, suggesting a COI, which I don't have a big problem with, but which does increase my skepticism when there is not much for sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stonner kebab[edit]

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

A dish created in one chip shop in Glasgow. Fails WP:GNG. Specifically, questionable whether there is significant coverage. Brief mentions in sources for this one-off creation, but I did not find sources reporting this food as appearing elsewhere or even elsewhen. Geoff | Who, me? 22:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Geoff | Who, me? 15:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found quite a bit of coverage of it in blogs and forums, but more significantly, it is mentioned in several books including this, this and others, spanning 2006 to 2013. So it exists and is talked about and therefore meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the first of those links returns a 404 error for me; the second is a passing mention on a single page of a 300-page book. Existence is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG – that requires "significant coverage", which I'm not convinced is contained in You Are Awful... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is not in-depth - i.e., not WP:SIGCOV. Neutralitytalk 04:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts of Ionesco[edit]

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

Unsourced article that resembles a fanpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughts of Ionesco The Banner talk 11:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  14:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Punknews
  • Blabbermouth
  • Stylus Magazine
  • The Michigan Journal. Quote: "By Mike McNelis Asst. Music Director - WUMD Radio. If first impressions are lasting ones, as I often conclude, Thoughts of Ionesco is going to frequent my turntable for many years to come. This group of local boys is bringing the most brutal ..." (subscription required) – Appears to be a review
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Divya Prabha[edit]

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

Non notable actress. Has done very minor roles in some movies. Besides is unreferenced and does not meet WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 15:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthyakoodasha[edit]

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

Non notable movie. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. References mentioned are all blogs. Jupitus Smart 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - YouTube-only films are not inherently notable; I see no chance of passing NFILM or GNG Spiderone 20:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saaral[edit]

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

Non notable boy band. Fails WP:GNG. All the sources mentioned are dead links and searching also does not yield any relevant results. Jupitus Smart 15:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't find any reliable sources on this group, at least not in English Spiderone 20:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFCD-FM[edit]

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

Delete. This is a low-power tourist information station, which is a class of radio station that WP:NMEDIA deprecates as not inherently notable. One of the key issues here is that the article states that the owners applied for revocation of their license "for reasons unknown" -- except that we know exactly what the reason was: this class of stations has been granted an exemption from having to have a CRTC license at all, which means an application to revoke its license was (a) expected to occur as a result, and (b) not proof in and of itself as to whether the station is "defunct" or not. But without reliable source coverage in media, there's no longer any way to properly verify whether it's active or defunct -- and if we can't verify it, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFBA-FM[edit]

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

Delete. This is a low-power tourist information service, which is a class of radio station that WP:NMEDIA deprecates as not inherently notable just because it exists. Such stations are now exempt from having to have a CRTC license at all -- which means that in the absence of reliable source coverage about the station in media, we can no longer verify even the basic fact of whether such a station is still operational or not. And if we can't verify it anymore, then we can't keep it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biyala's sati dadi or bajawa ki sati dadi[edit]

Biyala's sati dadi or bajawa ki sati dadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Uncited article, which I could find support for. Seems to contain a bunch of original research. Was deprodded. Onel5969 TT me 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete--A7(Company/organization) (prob. with G11 too) was the appropriate action.Zero notability.Winged Blades Godric 04:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Wales Long Distance Walkers Association[edit]

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

Non-notable local branch of a national organization. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nidrayil Oru Rathri[edit]

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

Just some B-Grade sleaze movie with no proper references. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 17:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 04:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sriteja Jeedigunta[edit]

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

Not a single one of the references is a reliable source for notability. His book is listed in WorldCat, but no copies are in any worldcat library (that does not of course prove it may not have been a success in India) DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Abbott Jr.[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Was not able to find RS about him, only about films that he acted in. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to In the Radiant City – there is not enough here to demonstrate that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. Of the two bona fide WP:RS cited, The New York Times source is only a passing mention. That leave the Variety source which is a legitimate source to help establish notability, and would seem to indicate that In the Radiant City is a "significant" role for him. But that's one role, and WP:NACTOR demands multiple significant roles. Redirecting to In the Radiant City might be the best call here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should indicate whether delete or redirect is the better course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When the article stoops to mentioning a minor, uncredited role in a film that it makes a point to call award winning it is way to over promotional and just needs to be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Villa[edit]

Monique Villa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • The article is promotional from beginning to end
  • Wikipedia is not a CV. This is not LinkedIn. (WP:NOCVS)
  • I doubt whether she passes notability requirements (WP:PEOPLE)
  • The edit history seems to show questionable behavior. Almost all edits to this page are made by Wikipedia accounts who have only edited to this Monique Villa page (and occasionally a related page, like the organisation she works for)
  • For your ease, these links will bring you directly to their contributions: ABranche, Annyabiz. Megan.dold, Chiaratrincia, Aeagal, Melancholy2004

Wikipedia has quality and notability standards that this article does not meet. I think we can serve Wikipedia best by deleting this page, although I welcome any counter-arguments you might have.
Amin (Talk) 03:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's written in an inappropriate style. It might be OK if completely rewritten. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe this page should be kept. Monique Villa is a notable person in the field of corporate philanthropy and is well-regarded in her field and contributions to raising awareness of modern slavery worldwide. User this morning made incorrect edits. She is not an American business woman - around the web she is cited as French. Could someone provide guidance on how to re-write this to ensure it's in bio-style? She hits the three key criteria for general biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.220.74.6 (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Monique Villa is a notable person"
Can you provide evidence for this statement?
Amin (Talk) 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Monique Villa's peers are the heads of other philanthropic organisations, including: Darren Walker [57] of Ford Foundation [58]; Judith Rodin [59] of Rockefeller Foundation [60]; Christopher Stone [61] or Open Societies Foundation [62]; Larry Kramer [63] of Hewlett Foundation [64].

These wiki pages are all of people within the same field, with similar standings in their respective organisations and similar experience. Perhaps practical suggestion of how to edit rather than just deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.102.45 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Your first article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. for reasons given above, the article should stay but the wikipedia community could support in re-writing it if they feel that the article is not written to the wiki standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.220.74.6 (talk) 17:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyong-hwan[edit]

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

Not notable person. Known for one time event only. There are no any evidence he's a well known activist. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it really difficult to understand the bad-english I can only see a rant at the way the Army and South Korea treated him which was probably the case he made to claim asylum, a one time event. Difficult to work out if he was miffed at being signed up to the military or the really bad way they treated his sexuality. Doesnt appear to have done anything before or since the asylum was granted. MilborneOne (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 03:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul UFO Museum[edit]

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

No clue indicates that is notable. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep although probably closed, notable as a historical record, has coverage such as this Atlantic306 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yadavan Chandran[edit]

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

Non notable son of famous movie director. Is probably trying to foolw in his father's footsteps, but has not produced a notable creation yet. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 16:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and because notability is not inherited Spiderone 20:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  18:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrography of Cúcuta and North Santander[edit]

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

This article is unsourced since October 2006, I tried to find sources, but I didn't find anything else than a reference which has 3 lines over this topic, it is not enough for an own article. Gambler1478 (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does seem to be an eminently notable topic, per WP:GEOLAND: the hydrography of the entire state. It'd be a shame I think to lose it, unreferenced as it is. My reaction is weak keep it, unreferenced as it is. Curious to see what the WP Geography folks have to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added two inline citations, and some WikiLinks--Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this topic has not enough encyclopedic notability to has an own article. At es.wiki, this topic has just a section in the state's article. --Gambler1478 (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps but en.wiki is of course the biggest, by far, and has many articles that other language versions don't. I'll keep a watch on this. Certainly won't stand in the way if the consensus is to delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've altered my bolded !vote above to reflect that it is obviously a weak keep... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article as it is is indeed not good enough for Wikipedia, and unsourced. The topic itself is certainly notable, but with a different title; Cúcuta is the capital of the department of Norte de Santander and thus shouldn't be in the article title. Hydrography of Norte de Santander would be a good new article, if sourced well, that is. The other departments can have articles like that too, if they are nicely set-up and references added. Found this deletion request via the WikiProject Colombia link. Tisquesusa (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has many Columbian and Venezuelan rivers mentioned. I added links to several of them, but I was disappointed by those rivers as they were unreferenced or had unimportant food references. The article still needs copyediting, which I added as a tag, after doing some myself.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note If kept, the rivers do have images in Wikimedia Commons to be added to this article.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have added two inline citations, and some WikiLinks. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Striking duplicate !vote - user has already put in their "keep" argument above. This is just a comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's just a big exercise in content-forking. Two sentences on the stated topic and then paragraphs on eight rivers. Six of those rivers have articles of their own and they all cover essentially the same info.Glendoremus (talk) 07:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems that there is no consensus on this article.Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. fails to advance an argument for deletion (non-admin closure)  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional open source[edit]

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

there are multiple problems with Professional open source article

The neutrality of this article is disputed. (January 2017)

This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (January 2017)

This article possibly contains original research. (January 2017)

This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information. (January 2017)

This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. (January 2017)

This article needs to be updated. (February 2017)

if these problems don't get resolved then this article should be deleted Jonnymoon96 (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close. This is the wrong forum. Please take to WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gefangnis[edit]

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

Deletion as per WP:NAD and possibly WP:A2 HapHaxion (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it really necessary to have the "word" prison translated into German on an English Wikipedia? I think we generally do not translate foreign words into English on Wikipeida. For example there is no Turkish translation of apple or German translation of hospital or Chinese translation of bird. Few would search Gefangnis for prison on an English Wikipedia.

--Necip Necipoglu (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the above summation of the situation. There is no purpose in creating an article simply rephrasing an English word into another language on the English Wikipedia unless the subject itself holds enough importance that calls for it (i.e. political parties, locations, brand names, etc). Wikipedia, as stated in WP:NOT and WP:NAD, is not a dictionary, and as such, I agree that this article, which does not provide any meaningful encyclopedic content, should be deleted. It is also possible that this article meets the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:A2. HapHaxion (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Steinger[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:NPOL. In addition to failing notability the article is overly promotional in tone and seems to have been placed as part of a campaign bid. Jbh Talk 01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 01:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and no other claim to notability AusLondonder (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Otherwise just another ordinary ambulance chaser lawyer. His firm's advertisements constantly run on television where I live....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources contain typical candidate coverage and quotes in articles about his business. Gab4gab (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nearly all of the references were based on him as a candidate and possible officeholder. Now that he is no longer a candidate and not a possible officeholder (unless he has made some statements to that effect, which should be mentioned in this AFD) deletion seems reasonable. Prior to election, his status as candidate and occaisionally cited lawyer was enough for notability. His status as lawyer alone is not enough. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Candidates are not entitled to articles just for the fact of being candidates in and of itself — and no, the candidacy would not have bolstered his notability in and of itself while the campaign was underway either. Our notability standards for politicians require a person to hold office, not just run for it — the only way a candidate for office clears the bar is if he can be demonstrated and properly sourced as already having had preexisting notability for reasons independent of his candidacy, but nothing here gets him past our notability standards for lawyers. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my nomination.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having a role in a law firms local television commercials is not a show of notability. Seeking a party nomination to run for the state legislature, but apparently not even winning that is not a sign of notability. He would have to have won the general election to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Mutton[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE as a journalist. coverage is merely her as the author of reports. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Village[edit]

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

This unsourced article fails our GNG. It is an article on a regional film distributor that distributes film in one Indian state. To clarify, it is not a production company, it is a film distributor in Tamil Nadu. DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely not notable. One of the "references" is for a cricket team, not even the film production company. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omer Dekel[edit]

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

not really certainseriously doubt (edited by request) Professor Dekel passes our GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 02:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. With his books and articles about his teachings, as well as public positions, he clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. The issue, that need to be solved in the article and absence of sources. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest the nomination of an article at Afd with the stated reason that "not really sure". Unless a nominator is sure an article does not meet criteria, they should refrain from nominating them. Debresser (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well nominator may not be sure, but currently it's clear case of BLP and though I personally think the article must stay, first thing to avoid deletion is to put proper references. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source or delete BLP applies and any bio needs a bit more than one workplace stafflist if it's to stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot about this article and the nomination seems off. Firstly that person created the article and tagged it as an orphan and walked away making no other changes, seems a bit strange to me. Additionally a person unsure about if its notable or not nominated it within 1 minute of being posted. How did all of this happen? Anyway, as it stands right now the only source is a staff listing. There is no sources proving he meets WP:GNG on top of all of the WP:BLP violations. - GalatzTalk 15:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Galatz - to answer your question, I was checking the New Pages Feed at the time this article was created. I also AfD'ed these articles within minutes of their creation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmo Village, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student Visa Extension Fee Structure in India. DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep. I wish I could see any indication that Nom is aware of WP:BEFORE But a very quick search indicates that sources exist.
E.M.Gregory:
  • Your second source (the Inquirer) is about a different person named Omer Dekel entirely. A 60-second Google search shows one is a middle manager with brown hair at a small company in Bala Cynwyd, Philadelphia [66], our BLP is a professor in Israel with grey hair [67].
  • So much for making assumptions based on a unique-looking name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a tip - when I WP:BEFORE I usually include, as part of the process, a Google Images search as it can sometimes help identify cases of identical names. You might find it helpful, too. With 7 billion people on Earth, the only assumption I generally make during BEFORE is that there are at least two people who have the same name. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • The first source doesn't provide biographical information, it's an acknowledgment that the BLP wrote an article about competitive bidding in a small scholarly journal (with an impact factor of 0.09, lower than the Appalachian Law Review).
DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, no. the JSTOR link is not to an "acknowledgement", it is a short essay in which the journal's editor takes issue with certain aspects of Dekel's argument. I do not know this journal, or this field; I do not know whether this is an important journal or not. Note, however, that in nominating an article where you have done a WP:BEFORE assessment, it is usual to give fellow editors a précis of how your searched and what you found. Especially useful if, as you imply, you have some knowledge of the academic field concerned and the prestige of the journals in which a scholar has published.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My basic point, however, is my discomfort with deleting unsourced articles about a page where apparently plausible claims to notability are made unless good-faith attempts have been made to verify those claims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the fact I was, in fact, aware the Philadelphia Inquirer article you cited was about an entirely different Omer Dekel ameliorates your concerns about the thoroughness of my BEFORE vetting! Best - DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone here familiar enough with journals asses the standing of this one? one? Can anyone speak with authority about the significance of the scholarly argument in which Dekel and the editor were engaged?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am. Public Contract Law has an impact factor of 0.09 which means that it is relatively infrequently sourced in academia. By comparison; the Yale Law Journal (the top-ranked law journal) has an impact factor of 2.7. From 2008 to 2015, articles in Public Contract Law were cited in case law 15 times, or about twice a year. By comparison, the Yale Law Journal had 109 case cites in the same period of time. That said, even if he'd been published in the Yale Law Journal that still wouldn't establish notability by itself with no other sources. Every month, thousands of academics are published in scholarly journals; per WP:ACADEMIC, journal publication does not confer automatic notability. The specific work of Dekel's which is being referenced has been cited by other academics a very modest 22 times [68], a number of which are unpublished papers or publications of places like "Banjaluka Law School" (which probably does a good job producing parking ticket attorneys but maybe not ICJ jurists). DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comparison analysis. The Yale Law Journal is one the most prestigious law journals, but it covers many areas of law. The American Bar Association is just as prestigious. Our article Public Contract Law Journal states that "it is the official journal of the American Bar Association Section of Public Contract Law" in association with George Washington University Law School (another prestigious institution located in the U.S. capital). In fact, George Washington University Law School publishes a journal comparable to the Yale Law Journal with a slightly higher impact factor (2.92), Georgetown Law Journal. But these are journals that cover wide areas of law.
Unlike the Yale Law Review and Georgetown Law Journal, Public Contract Law Journal covers the very specialized area of public contract and procurement law. Using a Google search of government+procurement+law+journals, guess what comes to the top? Answer: Public Contract Law Journal. I also plugged it in to this site that ranks law journals by various criteria, which did give the stats you have for the category "All Subjects". But the appropriate field is not "All Subjects", but the closest subject matter, "Commercial Law". For that subject for 2015, Yale Law Journal is not listed at all, whereas Public Contract Law Journal was ranked 8th for case sites with 15 cites (top was 51); 22nd for journal cites with 318 cites (top was 1118); 30th for currency; and 34th over all. The fact that the author got cited 22 in this very specialized field suggests to me he is probably an expert in the field, which is what the first line of the article says. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more research. This is his Hebrew Page: עומר_דקל [he]). Looks about the same.
Our English article says "his books on Public Procurement Law...have become the leading textbooks in the field, cited in hundreds of judgments of Israel’s Supreme Court and Administrative Courts." Well, I seriously doubt that the books are the leading books in the U.S. since they are written in Hebrew and do not appear to have been translated. However it may just be an improper translation to our English page. The Hebrew version (using Google translate) says his "books - Tenders A and auctions B - books are the country's leading law sector tenders, and earned him the status of an authority in the field of tenders. The books are cited in hundreds of judgments of the administrative court and dozens of judgments of the Supreme Court." So his books may be the main text used in Israeli (and, perhaps, any college of law that is held in Hebrew). --David Tornheim (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While he may be an expert, he doesn't pass WP's notability criteria. There's not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and his anemic citation counts (high of 22), doesn't help him pass WP:SCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 20:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russell W. Axman[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. reddogsix (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't find sourcing to corroborate the content of this article. Can editors find anything more than this and this? If nothing in the article can be referenced it should probably be deleted. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The mayor of a town of just 266 people is never going to be notable just for being a mayor. AusLondonder (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's theoretically possible that the mayor of a town of 266 people could actually clear the notability bar — New Hope, Texas isn't a lot larger than that, and its current mayor sailed over the bar when she came out as transgender. But the mayor of a town this size is not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists — we require reliable source coverage about Axman to get him over WP:GNG, and there's none being shown here. And no, the fact that you can find a stock photo of him on Alamy doesn't count as a GNG data point either. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mayors of cities this small are never notable for such a fact alone, although they may have enough wide-spread GNG coverage to be notable. There is no such coverage of Axman and the article should clearly be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted as G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion

-- Non-admin close by Calton | Talk 01:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teracom Training Institute[edit]

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

Small training company. Basically, an advert for their services, stuffed to the gills with their own sources and written, for the most part, by an editor who shares the same name as a listed employee AND one of the refs. No evidence offered of notability. Calton | Talk 00:38, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • See also Telecommunications Certification Organization (TCO), by the same authors and essentially the same sources. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • How odd: according to their "contact us" pages, both this "Telecommunications Certification Organization" and "Teracom Training Institute" have the same mailing address, a P.O. box in Champlain, New York. [69] [70]. Funny, that. --Calton | Talk 17:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page


There are four alleged issues.

  • Two are not violations, based on the written Wikipedia guidelines
  • One is not a violation, but the article can be improved / fixed
  • One is a violation, and a remedy is given.

Please read the discussion of each alleged issue on the talk page.

This article needs some work by an independent editor, but does not merit deletion.

Ericcoll (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:COI, and looks like your "independent" editor might also have a conflict of interest. The best outcome here is delete so that the article can be written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, assuming WP:COMPANY notability can be satisfied. I did the basic Google news search, and there isn't anything there. Also, please don't mess with the format of AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, sorry, I didn't know there was a format to an AfD. This is my first time. Can you please fix my formatting, so I will know how to do it properly and not look like an idiot? I'm not even sure if I am allowed to put in paragraphs, or it should all run together... I don't know what you mean by "my" independent editor. Can you elucidate? I took ten seconds and did the basic Highbeam search https://www.highbeam.com/Search?searchTerm=%22Teracom+Training+Institute%22 and came up right away with an article in Network World, a well-known magazine, with an article on the company. This is one of 19 notability links in the article. So I think, yes,WP:COMPANY notability can be satisfied. I understand the concept that a fresh start is necessary so that the article can be written from a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV by another editor.
  • I did some self-education and found this in the wikipedia documentation:

"If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." So I would think you're right, this deletion review should end in deletion and the alternative of creating a sourced article written by someone without a conflict of interest would be the way to go. 

Ericcoll (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the format, I was referring to the new section you created, and I fixed it. If you want to know the etiquette for contributing to an AfD, try WP:AFDFORMAT. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. czar 05:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schlansky[edit]

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

J♯m (talk | contribs) 00:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its current form is unambiguously terrible. It could possibly be improved, but right now it looks like a huge BLP issue. SOFIXIT? I'm not interested. It looks like it fails N, so I'd rather just delete. If someone else cares to carry the torch forward and make it usable, I could even be persuaded to vote KEEP. J♯m (talk | contribs) 00:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll vote to keep. He seems notable enough to have a wiki page, just need some TLC, I'll try to add on to it this weekend perhaps.01:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)AlaskanNativeRU (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_15&oldid=1142619253"