Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 February	19 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Omneya Abdel Kawy[edit]

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

This article on Kawy has been tagged has being inadequately sourced for over 6 years. I looked, and there appear to be no special notability guidelines for Squash players. Thus Kawy would need to fulfill the general notability guidelines, and it appears to me that none of the sources here are reliable 3rd party sources. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:IAR. This squash player has competed at the top of her sport including competing at the sport's world championships including the 2010 Women's World Open Squash Championship where she placed second, as well as being a team member competing in multiple world team championships. There are many match reports. I understand that routine reporting of matches is not considered coverage for the purposes of notability, but the material does confirm her high ranking. We don't have a specific notability guideline for squash, but that is most likely due to a rather inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Squash. If specific notability guidelines for squash were created, there's no doubt that ranking in the top 10 or coming second at the world championships would qualify. -- Whpq (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT having "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level." Hmlarson (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable WP:Squash player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an inactive wikiproject, not a notability guideline --Whpq (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:SPORTCRIT. TheMagikCow (talk) 07:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Doda[edit]

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

Fails our notability requirement for athletes as a member of an under-17 national team. No references, no substantial RS found in a cursory search. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of under 17 teams do not meet inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a case of WP:CBALL where there is no actual source that the player has even played for club or country. Either way even if he did a semi-professional club and u-17 team do not guarantee notability either. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Johnpacklambert comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:53, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Bănuță[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article about player who has not played in a Tier-1 international match. PROD was contested based on a claim that he had played in the Romanian top flight, which would of course be sufficient to meet WP:NFOOTY, except that the claim is not supported by reliable sources. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See evz.ro, sport.ro, gsp.ro. Razvan Socol (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The three sources mentioned above state that Bănuță has played in Liga I. Why do you say that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL? Razvan Socol (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:GNG appearing for CSM Ceahlăul Piatra Neamț in the Romanian Liga I in the 2007–08 Liga I season. This league is listed as fully-professional in WP:FPL. Here's a boxscore that showed he played December 14, 2007. Nfitz (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above keep votes. At first glance I thought this article failed WP:NFOOTY but after looking at the discussion here I realized I was wrong. Seems the article barely meets the requirements and therefore should be kept. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As I said in the nomination, playing in Liga I is sufficient to meet WP:NFOOTY. Now that it's been confirmed in reliable sources, I have no further concerns about this article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He does seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NFOOTY. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:58, 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 Procedural close. This should be at WP:MFD since it is a draft and not an article. (non-admin closure) Jbh ^Talk 00:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matt Holmes (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Advert (created by paid editor) for non-notable small businessman who happens to hold an obscure world record. Orange Mike | Talk 23:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Orangemike: Isn't this the wrong venue? It's in draft space, so WP:Miscellany for deletion should be the appropriate venue. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nintendo codenames[edit]

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

This stand-alone list fails WP:LISTN. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's basically a whole article based around WP:TRIVIA and WP:GAMECRUFT. The code names of Nintendo consoles are largely inconsequential and fade into irrelevance once they announce the final product names. I almost nominated it for deletion myself when I tagged it for notability earlier in the month. 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)Sergecross73 msg me
Delete per nominator. Trivial non-notable list. WP:GAMECRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessary and WP:SYNTH; fails to prove WP:N. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of this list is probably just made up, and even if it were true, it doesn't need an article about it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial list. Full of original research. --The1337gamer (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:LISTN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:01, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kbabej (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald C. Hambrick[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no assertion of notability. Kbabej (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The named professorships at Columbia and Penn State are a clear double pass of WP:PROF#C5 and the honorary doctorates also show notability. The failure of the nominator to recognize these as assertions of notability shows that perhaps some other area than academic deletion would be a better fit for the nominator's editing efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. WP:PROF#C5 seems to be clearly met, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C5. One of the most inept AfD nominations I have seen. Nom deserves a WP:Trout.Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 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. SpinningSpark 00:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of housing statutes[edit]

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

A seemingly random assemblage of housing laws, no attempt to present a global paerspective, and if it did it would likely be unmanageably large and cumbersome. This content is already organized in a category. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yes, this would be incredibly huge if globalized – not just the many national statutes around the world, but states and provinces, and localities... there is virtually no end. A category (and sub-categories) makes more sense. More useful than a list of all the stars in the sky, but just as interminable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest: We rarely cover other countries in full when it comes to a subject like this. Numerous articles on English wikipedia are Anglo-centric and Euro-centric, and often they are are focused almost entirely on the U.S. perspective (e.g. Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage note). Rather than delete them, they usually get appropriately tagged. If the article got too big, it could be split up. Categories can be helpful but would not distinguish important housing statutes from minor ones. Where is your evidence that the number of significant applicable housing statutes is interminable? The evidence seems the opposite, by the lack of housing statutes listed. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm forever pointing this out at Afd but since we have Category:Housing legislation -- why not a list, per WP:CLN? Some people do prefer to browse by lists, which can enjoy certain advantages. The potential size of such a list isn't an issue -- we have guidelines on when unwieldy lists are to be split -- nor are any current fixable problems. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In this case though, this is just a slapdash smattering of laws with no attempt to be comprehensive. So I would say delete regardless unless someone is willing to put int he work to make it a real list, as it stands I'm embarrassed for Wikipedia that we are hosting it. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A supreme example of WP:DOAL and WP:NOT, plus the reason Beeblebrox mentioned. Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: It looks like a useful list to me. Which major housing statutes--in the countries listed--do you contend are missing? --David Tornheim (talk) 23:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep.~~ The list certainly needs maintenance and expansion, but that alone is not a reason to delete it. As Shawn in Montreal noted above, it can be split into sub-topics if it grows too large (e.g. list of australian housing statutes, list of russian housing statutes, etc.). I think the real concern with this list is that that the concept of a "housing statute" is vague and somewhat subjective (see WP:LSC, which requires list selection criteria to be "unambiguous" and "objective"). Will this list include local ordinances that regulate zoning, habitability standards, etc., or just regional and national laws? Will it include criminal statutes that penalize burglary? Will it include landlord–tenant laws? What about laws that regulate the construction of new housing? I think the selection criteria need to be defined very carefully, but that can be accomplished through a discussion on the talk page (and if need be, the criteria can be narrowed to a very specific subset of laws that affect housing, such as a "list of mortgage statutes"). I also think this list runs into trouble with WP:LISTN. We don't have articles for housing law or housing laws, in part because legal scholars and practitioners generally discuss laws that affect housing within the context of real property, landlord–tenant law, mortgage law, laws that forbid housing discrimination, laws that attempt to preserve affordable housing, etc. However, I think this problem can be fixed by re-naming and re-framing this topic so that it fits within the framework of an existing, notable topic. For example, we could change this to a "list of real estate laws" or something like that (note that we have Index of real estate articles). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed there are other lists of statutes, such as List of statutes of China. Maybe each of these could be a sub-topic of the comprehensive List of statutes that I am hereby proposing. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Jacknstock, that already exists at lists of legislation, which is a list of lists of legislation by jurisdiction (note that list of laws is a list of amusing adages). At outline of law, there is list of lists about legal topics by subject. That listing includes list of real estate topics, which is a redirect that sends readers to Index of real estate articles. Another option for resolving this AfD could be to merge List of housing statutes into Index of real estate articles, though I can think of some statutes that affect housing but are not really "real estate" topics (e.g. burglary statutes or premises liability statutes, though the latter is certainly debatable and neither of those are currently listed at list of housing statutes). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's awesome! Maybe List of statutes should be a redirect. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My observations on this would be that there are no clear criteria for inclusion in this article, hence the mention of "slapdash" in the nomination. I mean, are we going to list every law on earth related to housing standards? Local zoning codes from every city? Seriously? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox, after considering this further, I think you are correct that it is going to be nearly impossible to create appropriate inclusion criteria. For that reason, I am changing my vote to merge relevant content to Index of real estate articles. That list already includes a number of statutes that relate to housing (e.g. Fair Housing Act). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Expand (globalize) and branch off as appropriate. Plenty of Wikipedia articles are "embarrassing," but I'm not embarrassed by the fact that Wikipedia has information about notable laws about very important subjects and an index to find it. This can possibly be seen as a pointy justification for the indef block of the author, who has been rendered unable to defend it. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to make of that comment, but if I'm reading it right, you've got cause and effect backwards. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - all of these are blue links, indicating probable notability for each. A student looking for such statutes could use this as a valuable resource tool. Bearian (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Possibly original research, and/or education related to law, or political science. Michael Ten (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 10:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Coffee:, why would you relist this? There's a clear consensus not to delete; any further debate on whether to purely keep or to merge would be appropriately done on the talk page, not AfD. This should be closed. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ribbet32: While you may see a clear consensus, others may not. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as useful. It should be organised strictly per country though. Laurdecl ^talk 02:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Article is basically just a list of bullet points, albeit hastily divided by country. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lists do happen to contain bullet points... Laurdecl ^talk 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The better organized ones also contain tables and paragraphs. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 16:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why this should be deleted. The nominator's rationale is in conflict with WP:CLN and one of the editors above seems to want it deleted because it contains bullet points. Laurdecl ^talk 23:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of hard to respond to a criticism like "in conflict with CLN" which contains a variety of advice. If you could link to a specific section or quote what part of it this nom is "in conflict with" it would be easier to know what your actual point is. By way of example, I could see how WP:AOAC and WP:DOAL would seem to support this being a category instead fo a list. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "This content is already organized in a category." it sounds like you think this list is unnecessary because a category exists, whereas CLN states "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." Laurdecl ^talk 02:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jacknstock. I don't see the need for this information as being in list format or how this benefits users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is actually a well organized list, tho limited to anglo-american jurisdictions. It should indeed be globalized, but an article with as extensive a potential scope will need to expanded gradually. It meets the requirements for a list--the individual items are notable, and the list attempts to be comprehensive. The reason this benefits users more than a category possible can is the ability to include additional information , which will hep the reader find what they are interested in. A category is a bare listing of article names, and intrinsically cannot be more than that. I think there are very few examples where a category that is composed of or 3 articles, not subcategories, and contains more than 2 or 3 items, should not also be presented as a list. So few, that I cannot thing of any. DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This doesn't benefit this project or the users. Also having such lists would show up why MediaWiki's taxonomies and navigaton tools are inadequate, especially for mobile users. Inlinetext (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I could imagine using this list. It would be a pity to throw this away. I don't understand the accusations that the assembled statutes are "random". --David Tornheim (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is just a small number of statutes from four countries. The actual list of all housing statutes would be so long your browser would crash trying to load it. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: per my comment above, I have seen countless articles that are Anglo-centric, Euro-centric or U.S. only. Usually they just get tagged, but not fixed. I agree with you that listing every zoning ordinance from every small town would be huge, but if you look at what the author Ottawahitech did, you can see s/he picked the national ones. And they are significant.

I notice that you have indef blocked Ottawahitech one day prior to nominating this article for deletion, and one of the reasons given is: "A user with your experience should not still be creating pages that qualify for speedy deletion". Because of that block, s/he can't defend the article. I am curious what other articles s/he created that have been such a serious problem. It seems like quite a few creations have survived. Why not just force the user to go through WP:AfC than have this long-term user kicked off the site. I know this is probably not the best place to discuss. I'm not sure of a better place that would have eyes on it. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was more random a month ago, when this AFD started. But even now, it has four statutes from UK, and one from New Zealand. Why these specific statutes? Quite a few from Canada and US, but none from other English-speaking countries such as South Africa, Liberia, Nigeria, Australia and so on. Why the Ontario Heritage Act and the Jesuit Estates Act? Is there something more special about these than the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 from Victoria, Australia? How were these selected? Beyond that, what about the rest of the world? Will it list Chinese housing statutes, French housing statutes, Saudi Arabian housing statutes? And then, of course, there are all the state laws and local ordinances that apply to housing. You're correct that it isn't entirely random, but a random selection from around the world might be more useful if someone is interested in a comparison. A person merely looking for housing statutes that personally affect them would be better served at a .gov web site (HUD.gov if they live in the US, for example). Maybe it should be renamed "List of housing statute articles" similar to Index of real estate articles (from which it could branch). What it does for us in that case is show the inadequacy of WP coverage of this area. Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above here, I have seen countless articles that are Anglo-centric, Euro-centric or U.S. only (e.g. Implied-in-fact contract, Mortgage note). Additionally almost everything I have seen from the legal arena on Wikipedia--except cases--is woefully without citations. See for example:

Licensee
Bundle of rights
Petit jury
Implied-in-fact contract
Mortgage law#Equitable_mortgage
Concurrent estate -- includes joint tenancy, tenancy-in-common.
Accord and satisfaction
consideration
Pacta sunt servanda

This relatively new article has hardly been given a chance. As you can see, others have taken an interest in it, and yet, it needs to be destroyed before it can be fully developed? Look at List_of_landmark_court_decisions_in_the_United_States. Multiple people pointed out--including me--that there was no WP:RS used to choose which decisions were "landmark" decisions. People just added whatever they felt like that the editor felt met the criteria. This is just par for the course in legal articles.

"but a random selection from around the world might be more useful if someone is interested in a comparison." No. That would be WP:OR.

"A person merely looking for housing statutes that personally affect them would be better served at a .gov web site..." That's not the purpose of the article. The purpose of the article--as I see it--is not to list every possible statute that has the remotest effect on "housing", but instead to educate readers about the historically significant statutes that have had long term impacts on housing law (not real estate). This article appears quite useful for that purpose, but perhaps is named poorly. I wish the author could speak as to his/her intention. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. See Talk:List of housing statutes#Ideas to make this article more useful. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it one of Wikipedia's thousands of list articles which may usefully provide links to a coherent set of articles. There are many lists with unclear criteria, and of varying degrees of incompleteness. A good reason to delete a list would be an inability to articulate and agree the scope of the list and the listing criteria. This is clearly not the case with this list. Any problems of content or scope definition in the currrent list can be sorted out. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:IAR. Paid editing sock farm. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Wagman[edit]

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

Reads like a resume. Fails to meet WP:BIO as lacking sufficient significance for an encyclopedia article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person, and I agree with the nominator. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, and also because it was created by a sock. Nothing of value here. --Tarage (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional piece about non-notable CEO. The sources are not sufficient in depth to pass GNG. Jbh ^Talk 05:18, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coaching leadership styles[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is an personal essay failing WP:NOTESSAY. It might also be WP:OR. A WP:BEFORE google search only brought up trivial results so it should be deleted. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we already have Coach (sport). Deb (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we also have teaching methods. DrStrauss talk 19:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and I would say, for WP:NOTHOWTO, as well. There's no shortage of problems. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not WP:OR, I've seen this sort of information before. Probably copyvio, but from coaching course material rather than the internet. It could be the start of a essay, but doesn't belong on WP, especially without citations. A blog site would be a better location for it. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 19:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, WP:NOTESSAY, WP:NOTHOWTO and completely unsourced. Ajf773 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete per nom and Ajf773 Tazerdadog (talk) 00:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant, per Deb and DrStrauss, fails WP:NOTESSAY, and looks like WP:OR; there is nothing to assert notability. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Essay-like article that also fails WP:NOTHOWTO. Subject can be adequately covered at Coach (sport). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glyn Styler[edit]

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

Does not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. There are some passing mentions in the Times-Picayune and here, plus a slightly longer profile (plus an extensive quote from his own website) here, but in total that's still too little to write an encyclopedia article about him. Huon (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid Delete Article cites no sources. None of the search tools produce any articles, etc, let alone from a reliable source. Zero notability. Tapered (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:08, 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 redirect to Apple Inc.#Brand loyalty. czar 06:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apple fanboy[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not urbandictionary. Jtrainor (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Technology evangelist. Alsamrudo (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple_Inc.#Brand_loyalty as more specific. I don't see a reason to keep the article, the content largely being coatrack-y. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:57, 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 Withdrawn (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kinlen[edit]

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

A disambiguation page with only two links isn't really necessary. The two pages linked also have hatnotes, which should suffice. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a dab, it's a surname page, and surname pages are actually articles (though they often look a lot like dabs). No benefit to readers in deleting it. A hatnote to an article on someone who shares the surname but is not ambiguous is confusing and doesn't meet WP:HATNOTE. Nerd1a4i, substantial changes have been made to the page - could you please look it over and see if you want to continue with or withdraw nomination? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn I would be willing to withdraw nomination with the changes made - how do I do so?

Nerd1a4i, thanks for looking it over so quickly. Essentially, that's it, just to put on this page that you wish to withdraw the nomination and someone can then close it. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn thanks for pointing out the edit. I've formally withdrawn the nomination. Have a great day! --Nerd1a4i (talk)

After a recent edit to the post Kinlen I would like to withdraw my nomination for this article's deletion --Nerd1a4i (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Hyman[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR. Bit parts in TV shows, mentions on company websites (as a lawyer), and passing mentions in coverage about a court case involving her father - the WP:GNG has definitely not been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a lawyer or an actress. The mentions are passing and in some cases from tabloids.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iaconelli[edit]

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

A disambiguation page with only two links isn't really necessary. The two pages linked also have hatnotes, which should suffice. Nerd1a4i (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This isn't a dab, it's a surname page, and surname pages are actually articles (though they often look a lot like dabs). No benefit to readers in deleting it. A hatnote to an article on someone who shares the surname but is not ambiguous is confusing and doesn't meet WP:HATNOTE. Nerd1a4i, substantial changes have been made to the page - could you please look it over and see if you want to continue with or withdraw nomination? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I guess. It's a service to readers trying to find one of the Iaconellis but can't remember their first name. There's only two, true. And as editor points out, technically its an article in which the etymology etc. of "Iaconellis" could be be added in future. I don't see how it's doing any harm. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete lack of sources to show the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good surname article.— Gorthian (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surname page, now with four entries. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:APONOTE. A surname with multiple notable people with the name is considered notable for indexing purposes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:17, 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 speedy delete - non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sabri sajjada Mansoor Minya Sahab[edit]

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

Nearly incomprehensible. No references, and very hard to understand what it is about or what he is notable for. If he is notable, needs to be blown up. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - under A7. There isn't any secondary coverage and makes no reference to notability. MereTechnicality ⚙ 16:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:A7 - no indication of notability anywhere within the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 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 redirect to List of Wikipedias. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akan wikipedia[edit]

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

Non notable Wikipedia edition. GZWDer (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias which at least used to be, and maybe still is, the standard practice when a non-notable edition of Wikipedia came up for deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias would fit the outcome of the AfD for Icelandic Wikipedia, which was more significant (previous version of the page for comparison) and some other recent cases Mortee (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias. This user has created a number of other unsourced, contentless "sub-stubs" that I have similarly redirected. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Wikipedias.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:40, 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) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Yousry (actor)[edit]

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

I incorrectly prodded this, not having noticed it had been prodded before. The earlier prod was removed with the rationale, "Added information about the Nile Hilton Incident winning a major film award". Unfortunately, notability is not inherited. This actor clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, and searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the guideline that actors need multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 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. Mifter (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Galvin[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with some résumé overtones and created by the subject himself in contravention of our conflict of interest rules, of a person notable only as a city councillor in a city of just 58K. The closest thing to a "more notable than the norm for a city councillor" hook here is that he was the first officeholder in his own county to come out as gay, but being the first member of an underrepresented minority to hold an otherwise non-notable office is not an automatic notability freebie on Wikipedia -- there would be a case for inclusion if it had made him the first out LGBT officeholder in the entire United States, and maybe even if it had made him the first in the entire state of Florida, but not if his "pioneering" status is limited to a single county or city. And for referencing, all we actually have here is a single primary source (his councilmember's profile on the city's website) rather than reliable source coverage about him in media. For a city councillor in a city this size to clear WP:NPOL, he needs to be sourceable to more than just routine local coverage as notable for more than just the fact of serving on city council -- but there's no real evidence that he meets that standard. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, elected local official lacking national or international press coverage, beyond the scope of what would ordinarily be expected for their role. See specific example in WP:POLOUTCOMES - "a small-town mayor or city councillor who was the first LGBT person ever elected to office in their country" not just in their county! Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Beyond that the article says they were "perhaps" the first. The sourcing on it shows no one has bothered looking to be sure. That would almost be a case of Wikipedia not being news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately Galvin is not notable simply for being "perhaps" the first gay councillor in his county. He fails WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of good sourcing. Members of city councils of this size are not notable. When one of the attempts to claim he is notable is modified by "perhaps" it shows that this is not an important enough issue for people to care enough whether he is really the first one, showing it is not really a notable issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Bearcat. I would be willing to change my vote with more references. Dolotta (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:43, 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 WP:MADEUP and WP:SNOW delete. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irrefutable Truths of Life[edit]

I'm nominating this because.... let me count the reasons. Firstly I cannot put my finger on an appropriate speedy, although clearly made up &c might do. If it had any text I'd PROD it as an essay, then probably AfD it after the article creator removed the PROD. rationale??? unencyclopedic nonsense. To put it politely.

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

TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, who has indeed put it politely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as "What the hell is this?" isn't a valid rationale, I'd better say that it appears to be a list with no specified inclusion criteria. Yeah, that sounds possible. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm pretty sure it falls under WP:NOTESSAY, in that the author is advancing controversial personal opinions about the nature of value, and notwithstanding the fact that the author hasn't provided arguments supporting these opinions. FourViolas (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedic and unsourced - Speedy needs a criterion for "clearly shouldn't be here, but doesn't fit the other criteria" - Arjayay (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR and fails WP:V because some of those "truths" are damn lies. Jack N. Stock (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A11 (minor stretch, but I think it applies), or else SNOW delete as unencyclopedic.Tazerdadog (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete essay/made up. not encyclopedic IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:04, 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 delete. Mifter (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley International Film Festival[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable film festival. So far there has been a single event in 2016. There does not appear to be any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Highlighting this point, is the fact that the only referenced statement in the article is that an executive from salesforce.com attended that event. There appears to be COI/self-promotion issues here as well, with one major contributor being SVIFF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the other indicating a connection on their user page. Edgeweyes (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Gnews reveals... absolutely nothing. This may one day become a notable event -- I hope it does -- but it is not, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of coverage as WP:TOOSOON also clear COI Atlantic306 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So, too, the related Christina July Kim. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be notable one day and a page can be made then, or it may be perfectly trivial and never deserve its own page, but it's certainly not notable yet. Ira Leviton (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too new, might not survive, fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 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.

Bharella Shah Nuruddin High School[edit]

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsourced & not notable. Google returns nothing but facebook pages and a schools directory listing, certainly nothing to back up the claim that it's "a renowned secondary school". Cabayi (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator per WP:SNOW & closure of author's SPI. Cabayi (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Easy to verify WP:V, public high schools of over 1,000 students are notable. I expect we would find more information in Bengali language. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unfortunately, WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is ridiculously wide-ranging in its scope. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Even there's unreilable or primary sources, that warrants an own article per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:19, 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. Mifter (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Number One[edit]

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

it uses unreliable sources. Alsamrudo (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LazyTown#Songs per WP:SNOW Exemplo347 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Memecruft. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The song's "meme" popularity has been covered by many sources including The Verge while Stefán Karl Stefánsson, the actor playing Robbie Rotten, has acknowledged the existence of the song as a meme. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alsamrudo What makes the sources unreliable? --Snaevar (talk) 09:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Snaevar When I nominated this for deletion, it had YouTube and blog post as sources. However, I fixed some of them, because the article probably won't get deleted. But you have got to admit, the article needs to be re-looked at. It references YouTube way too much. Even reception section uses YouTube's comment section as reviews. Also, Vocativ makes a brief mention. Alsamrudo (User talk:Alsamrudo)

Comment @Alsamrudo - A new reference was added from "Eurovoix"; according to that source, over 10,000 people wanted this song to be featured in Eurovision. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 22:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True that using Youtube as an source is unfortunate, but deletions are for subjects that have no merit of being on wikipedia at all. There are other methods for requesting an article to have better sources.--Snaevar (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage from reliable sources. The problems you cite (citing Youtube and comments as source, etc.) I agree with and thought should have been removed already. But aside from that, this doesn't warrant deletion, only improvement. It has become quite notable for a meme. κατάστασ η 23:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Katastasi --SwiftyPeep (talk) 09:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no doubt in my mind that this one's notable enough for an article. ONR (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Contains plenty of sources. Making memes non-notable is an failed proposal, per Wikipedia:Notability (memes).--Snaevar (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems awfully notable. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 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 redirect to Valuation using multiples. czar 06:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer group analysis[edit]

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

Essentially covered in the article Valuation using multiples. Suggest to delete and link from Peer group analysis to Valuation using multiples Jake Brockman (talk) 13:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 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 speedy deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need trees association[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGDEPTH for lack of available sources. - Mr X 12:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged it as CSD A7 and G11(promotional) as the links suggest the intent here is to promote this organization. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Baumert[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable kickboxer who does not meet our inclusion criteria for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria for kickboxers and the only coverage of him is routine sports reporting, which is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:KICK.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 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) 19:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CF Athletic[edit]

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

Article was deleted last month see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cage Fighter but the Db-repost was declined since this article is apparently about the parent company. I see no difference between the two articles other than a line about the name change with none of the concerns in the previous AfD being addressed. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO and for lack of notability. The section on CF_Athletic#Past_.26_Present_Associated_Notable_Athletes is a hallmark of an advertorial article, with a coatrack of notable names. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thamizhz Thiyagarajan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a no more notable filmmaker than he was 2 years ago when the article was last deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:FILMMAKER.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugen Kubala[edit]

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

A promising young scientist, but at the moment there are no reliable and independent sources confirming that he meets WP notability standards. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics. No indication his work is impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, created by SPA (contribs) Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom- the lack of coverage in reliable sources means that notability of this young academic has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 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 Snow Keep. Clear consensus with only objections by AfD nominator, a new account, and their sock account. As an aside, procedure was not followed to place a notification on the multiple nominated articles.—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015–16 Rhode Island Rams men's basketball team[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NSEASONS Per past discussions, the article fails WP:NSEASONS and the team did not qualify for a postseason tournament, be it the NCAA Tournament, NIT, CBI, CIT, or Vegas 16. Therefore it violates WP:NOTSTATS as well as WP:NSEASONS. I am also concerned that the articles lack adequate third party coverage. GLenhart1 (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons, as they either not a well known basketball program or did not qualify for a postseason tournament:

Strong Keep First off, the account GLenhart1 is just one day old. Secondly, college basketball is incredibly popular in the United States and if you simply Google search the phrase in "Google News" receives over 15.9 million results, making it safe to say it passes the WP:GNG sniff test. Additionally, Google has all DI games scheduled on their site API, as does CBS, ESPN, NBC, and so on and so forth. If that isn't adequate third party coverage, then I don't know what is. That alone in my opinion allows it to pass the WP:NSEASONS sniff test. If these were DII programs, then I would think GLenhart makes a strong point; however, I think DI programs, especially in college basketball have enough notable coverage to meet GNG, regardless of how well the team does in the regular season. Quidster4040 (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the age of my account is irrelevant in the discussion, so I will go ahead and say that is not an argument. You're in direct violate of WP:AADD by trying to invalidate my statements by my age of the account. GLenhart1 (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AADD is an essay, not a policy. What did I say that violated AADD? I'm seeing nothing. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Every Division I team has their own page for at least the last 3, maybe 4 to 5, years now. Same with every Division I football team. If they all get deleted then why even create any page until the season is over? We would have to wait until the post season to decided if a page is worthy of inclusion? That's crazy. And deleting all that work from so many editors seems wrong. It will make college basketball and college football editors seem like their work is meaningless. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is just WP:ILIKEIT, not an argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and ban GLenhart1 per Quidster4040's discovery on the new account. Reeks of WP:VNDL. Also I think Quidster and Bsuorangecrush say it all in their arguments, so I will mimic them. Twwalter (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment also in a review on WP:NSEASONS, GauchoDude make valid claims on what WP:NSEASONS covers and I think these articles do not violate it. Twwalter (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that is WP:AADD esque, don't you think? GLenhart1 (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GLenhart1 is working on Draft:2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season. I can easily argue that every single Division I men's basketball team having their own page is far more important and "well known" than any college soccer program. Another thing is who are you to decide what is a "well known college basketball program"? In the Mountain West you nominate San Jose, Air Force, and Colorado State but why not Fresno State, Utah State, or Wyoming? You are just deciding yourself that they are more important? I agree with Twwalter, this reeks of WP:VNDL. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quidster, where are you? Come back and make an argument! GLenhart1 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Quidster was buttmad over it deleted so I decided to rewrite the draft to make him happy. GLenhart1 (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't you say this violates WP:AADD? Quidster4040 (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did not look at every article, but the ones I did look at lacked references. However, I have no doubt that reliable, independent, third-party references exist to prove they meet WP:GNG with more than just WP:ROUTINE coverage. — X96lee15 (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't look at every article, then you don't have an argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made individual cases that these seasons don't meet GNG either. You have just said they didn't play in a postseason tournament and have made assumptions. Rikster2 (talk) 04:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, therefore it is not WP:GNG and WP:ATA. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for several reasons. (1) All Division I football and men's basketball season articles have been deemed the top level of amateur competition in the United States in their respective sports, and the consensus for literally 8+ years has been they are notable. (2) User:GLenhart1 reeks of WP:SPA, WP:VNDL, and most definitely has a previous beef with someone who supports these types of articles existing. (3) Glenhart1 claims the nominated teams are "not well known" yet that's a deadly combination of WP:OR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Per Bsuorangecrush above, Glenhart1 is wildly inconsistent. I hope that any admin worth his salt can read through this petulance and speedy keep. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For Division I programs, even those in smaller conferences, every single game is covered by 6-10 different regional and/or national sources. Teams are previewed in just about every major sports publication/site, recruiting classes covered, etc. in short, there is no shortage of reliable sources available for any D1 college basketball program. I'm sure that these articles could be improved, but that doesn't mean they don't meet WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calling me inconsistent make you violate WP:AADD by namecalling. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all above and long standing historical precedent. Yes, these articles could be improved, but deletion is not cleanup. As Rikster said, sources certainly exist. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Glenhart makes a good point. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were you trying to use a second account? You forgot to log out, if so (and broke the rules) Rikster2 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm making my own argument. GLenhart1 (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can't vote twice so I struck through it. Also, a little weird you'd refer to yourself in the third person. Rikster2 (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. These arguments are ignoring WP:NSEASONS Glenhart2 (talk) 04:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you really can be banned for WP:SOCK so cut it out. Rikster2 (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that comment alone is enough proof of vandalism. This discussion seems pretty much over. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :I know I should follow WP:FAITH2, but I feel safe in saying GLenhart2 and GLenhart1 are the same person, and he's a terrible troll. Quidster4040 (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these pages are an important form of information presentation. Please ignore the WP:SPA.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Really??? College basketball season pages have been around for a while and are clearly notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As if this isn't obviously going to close as speedy keep all, one further point: The nominator didn't tag any of the articles for deletion except the Rhode Island Rams one. There is not sufficient notice to article creators or editors that these were nominated, and therefore procedural keep all if nothing else. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination by an obvious sockpuppet. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Someone got bored, looks like a sockpuppet to me. @Sportsfan 1234: even you wouldn't do this! Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I recommend against a non-admin closure of this. The Admin who closes this is going to have to go through the nominator's Contributions and reverse all their additions to the various pages they've edited. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per comments of Quidster4040, Jrcla2, Rikster2, and Ejgreen77. João Do Rio (talk) 05:52, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christina July Kim[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. There is lack of reliable sources. Marvellous Spider-Man 09:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional piece, with apparent COI concerns. As far as I can tell, the only claim to notability was having won an award at the Nice International Film Festival, itself a redlink. WP:TOOSOON. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As much as I would like to see independent film makers included in Wikipedia, I don't see how the subject of this article meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Deli nk (talk) 21:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Kings—Lahore Qalandars rivalry[edit]

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

Contested PROD. WP:NRIVALRY clearly states that sports rivalries are not, by default, notable and that notability of the rivalry itself (which I take to mean rather than the fixture simply existing) must be shown using the WP:GNG. One source - from Parlho - is used to suggest a notable rivalry - which is, in effect, a bunch of tweets collected by someone. Given that this sources styles itself (via the page title) as the "leading viral stories platform for Pakistan youth" I would suggest that it does not meet the requirements of the GNG in this regard. None the other (English language) sources I can find show the sorts of notability that I'd want to show that there is an actual rivalry beyond people insulting each other on social media. To me, then, non-notable and very new sporting rivalry that doesn't do anywhere near enough to show notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sport-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:GNG and, from a purely project viewpoint, WP:NCRIC. Adds no value whatsoever and seems to be no more than a short-term fallout than a genuine and long-standing sporting rivalry. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not demonstrated, coverage is WP:ROUTINE. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's really just a collection of stats, more than anything. No real indication that there's an actual rivialy, just that two teams have played each other a few times. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:34, 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 procedural close. AfD is not for content in Wikipedia namespace. Such content is discussed at WP:MFD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian roads/List of state highways in Assam[edit]

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

naveenpf (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. czar 06:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Institute of Health Technology, Ifo[edit]

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

Outside of the school's own website and FB page, can't seem to find any evidence this Nigerian medical school exists. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per web site and published research, affiliated to Ogun State College of Health Technology ~~- merge? They might develop more quickly by combined efforts.~~ Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not even sure Ogun State College of Health Technology passes our GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's an existing consensus to keep schools, especially higher institutions once their existence can be verified in reliable sources, even without necessarily passing GNG. I think a merge proposal will be in order since it has been established that its affiliated with Ogun State College of Health Technology. Darreg (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the "Royal" part of RIHT is self-conferred (there's not even a claim that it was bestowed by any specific person), so I wondered if the "affiliation" was also self-conferred. I discovered the nature of that affiliation and have added it to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as there is no sign of meeting GNG. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have searched extensively and found very little independent information, only a mention that a notable state college approved this private occupational college to offer a few recognized courses. This I have added to the Ogun State College of Health Technology article, which is sufficient. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as blatant hoax. R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vuyiswa Dabula[edit]

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

Available sources do not support the article's claim that Vuyiswa Dabula is the Vice-President of the United States [1]. Absent that, seems to fail GNG. (If sources can be found indicating Vuyiswa Dabula is the Vice-President of the United States I would like to withdraw my nomination.) DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - blatant hoax. WP:CSD#G3. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:24, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe Closely[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, fails GNG. South Nashua (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON as already stated Spiderone 09:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFF. –Matthew - (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 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.

Club spa[edit]

The result was Speedy Delete. Article has been speedily deleted per G11. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

appears to be tips for relaxation at a spa, and not an encyclopedia article DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ataxan Araz[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A cursory search of Google News and Google Books fails to turn up broad and consistent RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable person. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Zero sourcing, not in English. Editor should be told about the wikpedia in the appropriate language. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is not in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:42, 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 - Speedily deleted, promotional. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WASEEM SPORTS (SPORTS WEAR MANUFACTURER)[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Obviously PROMO. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:45, 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 06:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Razihel[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Fails WP:Music - TheMagnificentist 10:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 10:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - TheMagnificentist 10:06, 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 07:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mussa Ekzekov[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, and WP:PROF. Emeritus Prof is honourary. Google Scholar lists two articles. Google Books and Amazon/B And N has nothing. Ref's don't seem to add up. scope_creep (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- has a well-developed ru.wiki article, and appears to be notable as a businessman and for civic involvement. For example, the claim that the funds for a sculpture to Dmitri Shostakovich were donated by his company checks out: link: "General Director of "Solomon" Moussa Ekzekov who initiated the creation of the monument and presented it to the city...". K.e.coffman (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per K.e.coffman. Seems to meet WP:BASIC as having received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 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 speedy deletion (A7).(non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Master Karthik Yadav[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A thorough search of Google Books and Google News fails to return RS. DarjeelingTea (talk) 07:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as A7 but I'm wondering why you brought it here? GSS (talk|c|em) 11:22, 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) 05:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hilltopper Play[edit]

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

Delete. Article has multiple issues, the main one being WP:Notability. The term should perhaps be included in an American Football glossary if there is one but it is too obscure to deserve an article in its own right. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:59, 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 07:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was the play that took the Super Bowl LI into overtime, with the most renowned current NFL coach (possible GOAT) borrowing a trick play from a FBS team, in front of over 111 million people in the US and billions worldwide. That's a little too notable to be included in a glossary of American football plays or merely mentioned in the main Super Bowl LI article. As far as trick plays go, this is a big deal. If this article survives AfD, Super Bowl LI#Second half should mention the play by name and wikilink it. I started intending to comment, but by the time I finished writing this and reading the related articles, I'd convinced myself to say "keep" - maybe a weak keep, but a keep is a keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacknstock:, I restored the other category, Category:American football plays as the article states it was notably used in the Boca Raton Bowl. So I think in this case we shouldn't diffuse. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal:, I was thinking that Super Bowl plays are a sub-category of American football plays. Being a Super Bowl play doesn't imply that it was never otherwise used in American football. BTW, what do you think of it being described as an unofficial trick play in intro? Are there any official trick plays? I think that word "unofficial" needs to come out. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and I did fix the parent categorization of Category:Super Bowl plays -- which I'm not even sure should exist -- accordingly. Just that the article states it was used notably in an NCAA game, too. So maybe someone presumably searching for this doesn't know it was used in the SB? I've really no strong views on it and you can change anything you like. I agree with you that I don't see how there can be official/unofficial trick plays? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It didn't really "take Super Bowl LI into overtime." It was the last play of regulation, but while it caught the Falcons off guard, it didn't result in a score, and the game was already tied at that point. Had it somehow scored the game winning touchdown in regulation and prevented overtime, then it would clearly be notable (see, for instance, the Music City Miracle), but we don't have articles for every failed trick play, and the trick play failed in that it didn't result in a score like it was supposed to. Now, failed football plays can be notable under exceptional circumstances (see Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game for one example) but I don't really think this qualifies. First, the Patriots won the game in the end, so the play's failure really didn't have a sustained impact. Second, the play occurred in a situation where it was highly unlikely the Patriots would win in regulation to begin with, so the fact that the play meant they didn't win in regulation and the game went into overtime isn't particularly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The simple fact that it's a corny goofy thing doesn't prevent it from passing WP:GNG which it seems to do based on sources proviced. There's some cleanup needed to the article, and it will probably just be a stub but that's okay. Weird and apparently notable.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It did not result in a score and did not change the outcome of the game, if we had articles for every non-notable play then Wikipedia would be full of such articles. Ρο Βουκ (talk) 04:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the "results" of the play have no bearing on the decision to keep or delete, it is the coverage of the play that points toward notability. Lots of coverage of a poorly-executed attempt leads to a notable poorly-executed event. I believe that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too much risk here that Wikipedia becomes the validating force for the existence of this topic. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Wait till it is in a book. Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Question I have no understanding of your reasoning. Can you please elaborate?--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I located applicable text at WP:Fringe theories, relating it back to WP:SYNTH. This is quoted from oldid=767051184

Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research.^[1]

Notes

^ See in particular "Synthesis of published material that advances a position".

Unscintillating (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Thanks. To me, passing WP:GNG proves that it isn't original research.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into fumblerooski. When I saw the play live I immediately thought it was a fumblerooski, and I'm still not convinced it's different enough to warrant its own article. It's just a variation of a well-known trick play. Lizard (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's nothing at all like a fumblerooski. The ball isn't fumbled and picked up by the lineman, it's handed off to the running back. Not even close. Strongly oppose merge to that target. Smartyllama (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really wanted to !vote keep, but there is simply not enough in-depth coverage of this to show that it passes notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:55, 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 keep. Mifter (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saint John's Senior Secondary School[edit]

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

Not notable enough. TrendSPLEND^✉ 07:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Articles on schools that provide a high school education survive AfD if they fulfill WP:V. This one does, plenty of sources, including Central Board of Secondary Education. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES doesn't require Notability. All it requires is proof that the school in question exists - as strange as that sounds as I'm typing it.~~ Exemplo347 (talk) 08:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Struck my !vote above, in line with the decision here - a decision I personally agree with. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Your vote is not in line with the decision. Who searched local print media? This AfD is (retrospectively) flawed under the admin decision. AfD of high schools requires someone fluent in local language to review local media prior to nominating for deleting. Jack N. Stock (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I noticed recent AFD or two that began to say Indian secondary schools are an exception if they go up to grade 10 not grade 12. I don't see merit in changing wp:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which has been very useful to have in place. We don't want a zillion AFDs and anger/debate about the policy that has worked well. Here I don't even see evidence about what grades this school includes. But it is a secondary school. Keep. --doncram 23:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Union Government of India Central Board of Secondary Education at http://cbseaff.nic.in/cbse_aff/schdir_Report/AppViewdir.aspx?affno=1730019 states 597 students in 11th and 12th grade (click on the Enrolment of the Students section). Jack N. Stock (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is a clearly verifiable secondary school. Long-standing precedent. AusLondonder (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a clearly existing and valid secondary school as per this decision CalzGuy (talk) 07:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 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 speedily deleted by Diannaa. Reason: (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.du.ac.bd/faculty/faculty_details/IHC/1294). (non-admin closure) Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Md Akhtaruzzaman[edit]

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

Not notable person Kayser Ahmad (talk) 05:56, 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) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Abbate[edit]

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

Abbate never actually played in the NFL. He bounced from team to team due to injuries and failing a physical. His college career was not distinguished enough to justify an article on its own. The article was kept back in 2007, but back then we had much less rigid inclusion criteria. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He passed WP:GNG back in 2007 when the last AfD resulted in a "keep" decision, and there is no reason to revisit the decision. Examples of the significant coverage in reliable sources include: (1) this; (2) this; (3) this; and (4) this from The New York Times. There was even a feature film (The 5th Quarter) made about his story. See (5) this, (6) this, and (7) this. A book was also written about the 2006 Wake Forest Demon Deacons football team that goes into Abbate's story. See (8) here. Cbl62 (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. Lepricavark (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is not temporary.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passed WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Aafjes[edit]

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

I am not seeing the legues he played in in the list of fully professional leagues, so he does not seem to pass our inclusion criteria for football players. The coverage is mainly from team web page player bios, so not enough to pass the general notability guidelines either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – He played for three Eerste Divisie/Eredivisie teams (FC Volendam, PEC Zwolle, MVV Maastricht) and one Scottish Premier League (now called Scottish Premiership) team (Falkirk F.C.), all fully professional leagues listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (via WP:NFOOTBALL). – Editør (talk) 11:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he played many times in the Scottish Premier League, which was the top division of football in Scotland, for Falkirk. You won't see it in the FPL list because the Scottish leagues were restructured in 2013. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NFOOTY. And for more than one team as well. Adamtt9 (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to the fourth source (regional news organisation) he played 150 professional matches, "betaald voetbal". Ergo, in addition to passing WP:GNG, he passes WP:NFOOTY. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above. Nfitz (talk) 03:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and would recoment speedy per WP:SNOW. Per above comments. Article clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allahabad Monorail[edit]

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

There is no proper reference on the subject of this article. The only fact is that is was once planned and there is hence no recent development on the subject. Ghits also hardly have any results related to the Allahabad Monorail. Try to search for news articles and it's mostly related to Kolkata, Mumbai and Noida. — LeoFrank ^Talk 07:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure speculation and certainly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 10:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Nördic Nightfury 08:35, 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 keep. Consensus is to keep per the discovered trans-wiki references. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Le Crocodile (cancelled film project)[edit]

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

The film was never made. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The detail and sources on the French Wikipedia page suggest this is notable, so that the page could be improved. Mortee (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Its claim to fame in the English-speaking world (and the reason I had heard of it) was as an unfinished project involving Peter Sellers. Considering it isn't even mentioned in the Peter Sellers article, that is a slim claim. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have, as Mortee correctly points out, a well developed and sourced article at fr:Le Crocodile (projet de film inabouti), it is actually a GA on French Wikipedia. WP:BEFORE litra B, #6 suggest that interlanguage links are checked prior to nomination for deletion. Sources do not seem to be a problem, I have added four {{cite book}}s, and further sources exist to pass WP:GNG. — Sam Sailor 15:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Robert Chazal (1980). Louis De Funès: seine Filme, sein Leben (in German). Heyne. pp. 116–. ISBN 978-3-453-86020-9. Man macht nun nähere Angaben über das, was Le crocodile sein wird. ... Gerard Oury kann zufrieden sein: Er hat nichts vergessen, um sein Krokodil in tödliches Wasser zu tauchen. Unmöglich ... Man engagiert einen weiteren Schauspieler, den italienischen Komiker Aldo Maccione, der den Polizeichef darstellen wird.
Philippe DURANT (29 March 2012). Les Éléphants (in French). SONATINE. pp. 81–. ISBN 978-2-35584-144-6. Pendant ce temps, Oury reprend son Crocodile pour le soumettre à Peter Sellers, auquel il a autrefois proposé Le Cerveau (rôle finalement joué par David ... Gérard travaille à une adaptation dans la langue de Shakespeare mais, le 24 juillet 1980, Sellers est terrassé par une crise cardiaque.
Olivier DE FUNÈS; Patrick DE FUNÈS (28 February 2013). Louis de Funès -nouvelle édition-: Ne parlez pas trop de moi, les enfants ! (in French). LE CHERCHE MIDI. pp. 1910–. ISBN 978-2-7491-2975-4. L'infarctus ou ... Quand Le Crocodile, le nouveau projet de Gérard Oury, se profila après le triomphe de Rabbi Jacob, le niveau de vigilance se renforça : ses films étaient très éprouvants. Dans cette ...
Philippe LOMBARD (30 April 2015). Petit Livre de – 200 infos incroyables mais vraies sur le cinéma (in French). EDI8. pp. 83–. ISBN 978-2-7540-7686-9. En 1975, Louis de Funès aurait dû interpréter un dictateur dans Le Crocodile de Gérard Oury, aux côtés de Régine Crespin, Charles Gérard et Aldo Maccione, mais la vedette a été victime d'une crise cardiaque deux mois avant le début du ...

Keep – The depth and quality of the coverage in the French Wikipedia article is compelling. Based on this information, the subject passes WP:GNG. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 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) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver the 2nd[edit]

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

The page has no sources at all, so it might actually be possible to Prod delete or speedy delete it. I searched for sources, and all I came up with was a twitter account and web-sites run by the subject. Nothing comes close to showing he is a notable musician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page has no sources and is a notability issue. Joseffritzl (talk) 11:38, 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. Wizardman 22:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark Plaza[edit]

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

The article is about a stadium that was proposed, however not constructed. It has no references, and the external links on it do not provide any information about it either. I see no evidence of notability. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel the subject of this article makes this entry notable enough to keep, as long as it can be reinforced with reliable sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.. Non notable proposed ballpark that was never built for a team that never existed in a league that itself is barely notable. Spanneraol (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spanneraol....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brownsville, TX [2]. Unscintillating (talk) 02:12, 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 06:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs and societies of Beijing International Studies University[edit]

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

Non notable list that also serves as a directory or student guide. Practically entire list is referenced from one primary source. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY Exemplo347 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. The sources are social media anyway, so I don't see any need to merge content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:55, 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) 19:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FlexJobs[edit]

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

Created by declared COI. Reasonably well balanced/NPOV considering. Still has a promotional feel. Did have some COI issues today, namely with these edits: first and second by an IP - their only 2 contributions.

I do not feel it meets WP:Company or WP:GNG. It has some coverage, however not sufficient in my opinion. It has some coverage - a brief mention on US News here, a very brief mention on WSJ here, reasonable amount of coverage in this article on entrepreneur.com and a brief mention (with link to self-published research) here and a mention in this Forbes list. This on ZDNet feels like an advertorial. Now it can be argued that this is numerous trusted sources, however I feel this is all far too routine for a small company hustling to get its name recognised - I don't think the sum of all of this constitutes 'considerable'. Many, many companies get the occasional mention in the press, have staff drop a soundbite or quote, and perhaps score the odd extended write-up.

Has existed for nearly 2 years and is still an orphan. Additionally I believe this article should be deleted for WP:DIRECTORY reasons.

I appreciate some editors' interpretation of 'significant' is different to mine and this debate will perhaps have keep votes based on the sources above, however for me I do not believe I see the significant coverage needed to satisfy myself of its notability.

Rayman60 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rayman60,

Mike at FlexJobs here. Thank you for listing your concerns. I agree with what you said here regarding how small companies trying to get press coverage and simple mentions are not justified as notable. We were certainly one of those when we started, yet feel we have "graduated" from our humble beginnings 10 years ago. I suppose I tried to cite material from reputable sources when crafting this page to show that. While I of course would like this page to stay up, I want to also make sure we are adding value to your readership and comply with your guidelines. I am not sure if it would help to know that CNN reporters (and many others) come to us looking for leading data on remote and flexible work. In fact, our top 100 list of companies offering the most remote jobs will be released on CNN and Forbes next week. I am open to your feedback and feedback from the other editors on how to comply with your guidelines and welcome a discussion. Thanks for listening and for working with a fairly newby when it comes to Wikipedia editorial guidelines. Trying to be as transparent as possible here :)

Just a quick update about the press I mentioned above. CNN, Forbes and CNBC just covered a story about our Annual top 100 list.

Mike at FlexJobs (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With absolutely no discussion on this besides from the requestor and the creator, I find it impossible to ascertain any reasonable consensus at this point. Given that so little discussion has happened a 3rd relist is not an unreasonable on the community.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable job cite; content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a place to promote businesses. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Island Fever (film series)[edit]

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

An unremarkable film series that lacks reliable secondary sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Significant RS coverage could not found. Article exclusively cited to industry publicity materials and other PR-like coverage. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete puffery. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:GNG for lack of RS coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails WP:GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and no evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:08, 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) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winner's Circle Productions[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate any reliable sources to establish notability (or existence). Magnolia677 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability established nor found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 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) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon C[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Go Grizzly[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 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) 19:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hood Famous[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Sturrock[edit]

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

Cannot find any mention of him or his book anywhere. Fails WP:BIO Rogermx (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion opener did not properly substitute the AFD template, so this did not appear correctly in the log. Therefore, this does not count as an official relist. This discussion may be relisted without comment up to two times after this correction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a total lack of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete for lack of sources. May have been written as WP:MEMORIAL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 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 redirect to Whiteside. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteside, Northumberland[edit]

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

No evidence Whiteside is anything more than a bunch of buildings, and is certainly not a village Nilf anion (talk) 02:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to disambiguation page Whiteside, if not to Carrycoats (was "Keep, tentatively.") Call it an unincorporated community or a location instead, if a village in England must be a legally incorporated entity. Perhaps it is a former village. It is, anyhow, a place where people have lived and have been born e.g. these Find-a-grave mentions of 1851 census era and perhaps die. It is a location in Google maps. In satellite view, yes, there is a group of buildings, perhaps a farm complex? Searching yields mention here in Kelly's Handbook to the Titled, Landed & Official Classes as a location or estate or something associated with Thomas Sample, as are Bothal Castle and Morpeth. Sure, edit the article or tag it for improvement. --do ncr am 21:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed in List of United Kingdom locations and in worklist page in User:Rich Farmbrough's userspace, which links to this geograph.org.uk map of it. --do ncr am 21:58, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are individual farms notable? That's all Whiteside is, no different or more interesting than any of half a dozen others in its immediate area. With some of the neighbours, at least they are listed buildings - but that's support for a claim that Carrycoats Hall is a notable building, not a settlement. In contrast, Whitesides doesn't have any historic building designations.--Nilf anion (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I updated my "!vote" to "Redirect" as there seems to be a suitable target (see my comment below), and I choose "redirect" rather than "merge" because there isn't actually any material to merge (besides the assertion that Whiteside is a village, which seems not to be the case). --do ncr am 20:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the appropriate civil parish article, as normally happens with hamlets or lost settlements.Charles (talk) 10:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with that is there are at least two other Whitesides in Northumberland (in Walton and in Thirwall), in addition to this one near Birtley - which are also farms.--Nilf anion (talk) 12:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can redirect to Carrycoats for now, which will mention Whitesides and I will there mention the existence of others. The redirect could be changed to a disambiguation page if/when there is coverage of the others at other articles. --do ncr am 20:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Redirect - this location is a non-notable farm and I don't think a redirect or disambiguation is necessary for every named farm. Census records are detailed enough that farms are often mentioned as birth places, but that doesn't make it notable. It also shows up on OS maps[3], which also doesn't make it notable. For a bit more clarity about what this is, here is a brief description of the Carrycoat Estate mentioning Whiteside: [4]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Smmurphy's reference (to what is in effect a "for sale" listing?) provides characterization of Whiteside as being one of several parts of Carrycoats Estate (currently a redlink) which comprised the whole township of Carrycoats (currently a redlink) and included Carrycoats Hall (currently a redlink). Carrycoats Hall is a listed building (see HistoricEngland entry). I hope we could agree that the whole is notable for an article, which I personally would tend to want to place at Carrycoats. And that this AFD could be concluded with a redirect to that. :) I may start a draft at Draft:Carrycoats. --do ncr am 20:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other editors, please do feel welcome to edit at the drafted article! Carrycoats is sourced as being a historic township there, so I am reasonably certain this can stand as a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 20:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Carrycoats doesn't deal with the issue Nilfanion brought up that there is a Whiteside in Haltwhistle and Whalton (and a Whiteside Wood in Riding Mill). I think a disambiguation to Haltwhistle, Whalton, Thockrington/Carrycoats, and maybe Riding Mill makes more sense than a straight redirect. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about redirecting to Whiteside disambiguation page and adding info to there. I don't think a separate Whiteside, Northumberland disambiguation page is needed. Redirecting to Carrycoats, now in mainspace, is also feasible now.

By the way, the "Whiteside, Northumberland" in Google maps, which looks like a farm, turns out to be a different Whiteside near Haltwhistle, 24 miles by roads away from the Whiteside Farm within Carrycoats (very close to the open field that is the location of the supposed village in the article, according to its coordinates in the article). Yes I see there are other "Whiteside Farm" entries within Google maps, too. --do ncr am 22:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Whiteside sounds correct to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 23 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 Monarchism in France. best solution DGG ( talk ) 09:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

French dynastic disputes[edit]

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

This was actually an expired PROD, originally tagged by Whaleyland (talk · contribs). I largely agree with his well-argued rationale (reproduced below), but I think that the article is debated enough (based on the lengthy discussion on the talk page) that PROD is not suitable, especially given that it could just be undeleted at any time after. I would rather see this get a full AfD to settle the issue completely with consensus from a wider set of eyes. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been tagged as disputed, original research, and point-of-view since April 2015. Numerous editors have discussed in detail on the Talk page the problems of this article. It is one sided, focusing almost exclusively on the merits of Legitimism over Orléanism and Bonapartism (neither of which are given much space in the article). Furthermore, this article lacks credible sources for the amount of content it contains. Despite well-made arguments on this page, this material is not encyclopedic and does not contribute meaningful, reliable information to the Wikipedia reader base. Ultimately, it reflects almost exclusively the original research of User:Reigen and the content is entirely biased and disputed.
— Whaleyland, [5]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. I agree with what FactStraight said a couple years ago: "This smacks of original research". This is an OR-fest of opinion with almost no reasonable sourcing for the topic. I'd been fine with a nice, quiet PROD but I'm ok forcing this through so it can't be re-created. In 2015 this was translated from the fr-wiki article (which is still a mess, indicative of the subject) and hasn't gotten any improvement in sourcing or coherence since. Google Scholar shows a couple possible sources but I can't see much if any of this convoluted bullet-point miasma being useful to the task. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE. I didn't even know this was an option when I proposed it for deletion. I think the French article needs to also be deleted, but that would probably require somebody capable of writing coherently in French. I can only read French coherently :-( – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 03:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimists, Orléanists and Bonapartists do exist, in French we speak of the 3 rights. A quick search on the french wikipedia leads to fr:Les Droites en France which is lauded by France Culture as a classical work. Another google search lead to [6] and [7] which sum up the subject quite well.

I notice that other parts of the article are certainly notable :
- The Valois part makes the origin of the Hundred Years War which is one of the most important event in the history of France and UK in the Middle Ages.
- The Bourbon part is part of the French Wars of Religion which I studied in high school.
In short, the article should be rewritten (I feel the Arrêt Lemaistre is given undue weight) but not deleted. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune -- The earlier part of the article seems to list the issues succinctly, making this useful in providing an overview, and leading to more detailed articles. I suspect that the latter part is getting close to WP:OR, but I am not expert on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think delete everything after the lede. If all OR is cut from the article, that first section is nearly all that is left. Even the very first phrase after the lede, "To better understand", is a signal of OR, in my opinion. I am not sure if the first section is enough for an article, but I would think that a few good sources could be found for it. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide some additional context, there also are currently articles on Monarchism in France. Legitimists, Orléanist (see also Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist)), Bonapartiste, and the second half of Succession to the French throne. I feel between these, our bases are pretty well covered, probably excessively so. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 20:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monarchism in France as largely uncited OR, per WP:TNT; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. The topic may be notable and an article may subsequently be created to cover it, but this page ain't it. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Monarchism in France and merge anything useful there. This is a WP:CFORK. Sandstein 09:45, 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 no consensus. Bishonen | talk 21:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted House (2005 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, I have had a look on Amazon and for a Khmer language film to have 8 reviews on Amazon [8] is something to take note of. There is another title for the film which is House of Haunted. I have a feeling we need to go to the East for our info. Karl Twist (talk) 12:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I cannot find any good English-language sources. I've posted at WT:CAMBODIA to see if there are any good Khmer-language sources. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written in 2008 the article still has no sources with significant coverage. Current sources have just minor mentions of this film mixed with non-independent comments from connected individuals. I know there's no time limit on finding sources but there's also nothing here suggesting this film is notable. My searches found nothing helpful. Difficult to search for such a common title but I do not limit my searches to English only. Of course happy to reconsider if better sources appear. Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have a feeling searching in a different way will turn up more about this film. Something about this has now intrigued me. Director Huy Yaleng has also done a film Vikaljarek which was very successful in China. We'll see. Karl Twist (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I now my vote to a Solid Keep I believe this is the film on YouTube and it has 1,479,959 hits to date. It would have got a lot of recognition in Cambodia. That would satisfy me that it has been covered by sources we can't access. I'd say definitely notable. Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to recreation when/if sources become available. Right now there are no sources out there that do anything other than establish that this film exists (WP:ITEXISTS) and can be watched. While yes, the film has views on YT and Amazon reviews, neither of those are things that give notability on Wikipedia, nor does it gain notability from other, related films or from its director or actors (WP:NOTINHERITED). What is needed here are things like news articles or in-depth mentions in academic sources, which I can't find. I tried doing a search in Khmer using Google Translate, but couldn't find anything either - although my search with that is quite limited. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Tokyogirl79 post 19:04, 10 February 2017. Hi Tokyogirl79 , my reason for the mentioning the 1,479,959 now 1,509,242 YouTube hits and the 8 reviews on Amazon were not to give notability on Wikipedia. They were to indicate the level of interest in, and recognition of the film that doesn't come when something isn't notable. There are notable films on Wikipedia that don't have that many views on YouTube or reviews on Amazon. It rarely happens!. In an article about notable and respected Cambodian writer Mao Samnang, occasionally called Mao Somnang or Mao Som Nang, journalist / activist Socheata Vong comments in relation to her article "Who is the Cambodian ‘Rabbit Novelist’?" about Mao Samnang that the film "proved to be a success when it was on the screen". Karl Twist (talk) 10:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that stuff like that can be manipulated. You can purchase views on YouTube and Amazon reviews. Now I don't think for a moment that this is the case with this movie, however the fact is that it's easy to purchase things that make an item look more popular and it's happened often enough to where we can't even use those as something to justify that there's interest in something and use that to argue for inclusion. It's part of the reason why things like WP:ITSPOPULAR exists. It's insanely frustrating, especially with topics that by all accounts should have an article, but don't have the type of coverage that Wikipedia requires. I've run into this a lot with indie books and movies that have fairly large followings but fall *just* short of what is required on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well anything can be manipulated but that's not the case here. Be a bit like saying George Benson doesn't play on his own studio recordings. None of us are there when the recording session takes place but we're pretty sure that the liner notes on the album are correct that he plays the guitar where credited. The thing as it is with Khmer movies, we can't hope to access all that has been written about them in their native country. We have trouble even finding a little bit. This film has strong indications that it is notable. What's written in the Phnom Penh Post, the YouTube hits, the Amazon reviews, most of the reviewers have history reviewing multiple items, comment on the film by journalist Socheata Vong etc. In the past I have gone into libraries and found stuff fairly well to extensively covered in books that Bing, Google, Yahoo seldom or don't even mention. I appreciate what you say but I have every reason to believe that this film is well known and documented in it's own country. Quite possibly even in Laos and Vietnam. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon customer reviews will never be seen as a sign of notability for the reasons I stated above. It doesn't matter if the reviewers are long established on there or not - they're seen as a WP:SPS even if we ignore the fact that someone can purchase reviews. I can understand where you're trying to come from with this, but these are arguments that will not hold up at AfD. If this is kept then these are arguments that can be very, very easily destroyed if someone decides to contest it at DRV or re-nominate it for AfD. The arguments for this have to be based on current policy. Heck, even the NBOOK guideline for bestseller lists specifically eliminates Amazon's bestseller lists as a source. That aside, a non-notable film or product can still get a lot of reviews on Amazon and other e-commerce sites. I've seen more than one self-published book get a large amount of reviews. It's actually one of the more frustrating things about indie and self-publishing, as you can have things that are huge in the SPS blogs yet never meet GNG because they aren't talked about in RS. I have friends that have popular books and/or films, yet they fall short of GNG. The bottom line is that if you want this to be kept and you want to ensure that it's kept in the future, you need to find an indication of notability that's in a place Wikipedia considers to be reliable. I'd recommend asking for help at the various applicable WikiProjects for help - I'll even post at WP:CAMBODIA. It's just that it's unlikely that you're going to get a solid keep without something Wikipedia would consider a RS. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is worth further investigation, as alot of notable actors worked on the film and there are a few promising english language sources that I found from national sources [9][10][11] AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that further investigation is warranted. João Do Rio (talk) 05:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the YouTube link provided is not the official channel (Link and no sources have been offered at this AfD, only that further investigation is warranted. Once the investigation is complete, then the article can be recreated by an interested editor, if indeed sources are found. Until such time, this content does not add value to the project. No prejudice to recreation with reliable sources.

I also note that the article has had plenty of chances for improvement since the first AfD in 2014: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Haunted House (2005 film). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to K.e.coffman post 01:16, 27 February 2017. The Youtube link is not supposed to be the official channel. It's provided here to merely to serve as an example of the attention this movie has been getting. Again, the problem is that looking through Western goggles, the vision is tunneled when it comes to a country such as Cambodia. With the amount of interest that it has generated on Youtube, it's got to be more than a sure bet that this film has been covered by media in it's own country. The views are up to 1,600,503 now. Socheata Vong said that the film was a success it it's country. The article on the Phnom Penh Post alludes to the high probability that it is notable. I easily see many more reasons to keep the article than simply getting rid of it. Karl Twist (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - current sourcing has not been improved in years, and searches do not turn up enough to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. If an editor wants to take it on as a project, then please draftify. It has sat way too long without improvement to the sourcing to let it remain in the hopes that someone will put the effort into it it needs. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are out there - indeed, three have been linked within the comments above - so it's flawed to say that the article should be deleted because it does not contain reliable sources - deletion isn't cleanup. See WP:NEXIST. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources barely clear GNG, but its old enough not to be a hoax, and there's no harm done in preserving it with the history. Inlinetext (talk) 17:54, 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ternette[edit]

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

Delete. Biography of a person notable only as a non-winning candidate for municipal office, minimally sourced to a smattering of WP:ROUTINE local coverage in the local media with just one obituary to suggest any wider notice at all. There's just not enough substance here to justify an article, or enough sourcing to clear WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or wait the sources are legit, and I think he passes GNG, as being a public figure, though local.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A figure of purely local notability, such as a local activist who ran for but never won any political office that would constitute an automatic WP:NPOL pass, needs to be sourceable to more than just the routine level of local media coverage that would be expected to exist before they can claim to have passed WP:GNG. If there were 15 or 20 different sources being cited here, then GNG would be passed — but just three or four sources isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How would you characterize the Globe and Mail article about him? Or the CBC's coverage? What more does one have to do as a figure in Winnipeg politics to achieve notability? Bangabandhu (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Globe and Mail is a simple obituary, published in the paper's column where anybody can eulogize anybody they want, even the old woman down the street whose notability claim would amount to "she turned out to be a nice person once I got to know her". (And no, I'm not making shit up just to be dismissive: this "Lives Lived" column about the deaths of ordinary non-notable people really does exist.) So it would be acceptable for some supplementary verification of facts after passage of GNG had already been demonstrated (frex, by Globe and Mail coverage of his career in local politics contemporaneous to the time when that career was underway), but cannot be a bringer of GNG in and of itself because it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that a figure of exclusively local notability would be merely expected to have generated. The CBC coverage comes from the CBC's local bureau in Winnipeg, not the CBC's national news division, so again it would be fine for verification of facts after passage of GNG had already been demonstrated but cannot be a bringer of GNG in and of itself. What one has to do as a figure in Winnipeg politics to achieve notability is either hold an NPOL-passing position (mayor, MLA, MP), or be sourceable to more than just local media as notable beyond Winnipeg for more than just existing. Bearcat (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I don't know the nuances of Canadian media. If I find 15 different sources, will you not delete this page? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nominator. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A losing candidate for a municipal elections. Nothing but local coverage. Does not meet notability standards.Glendoremus (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for mayor are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as its almost comical that this person would be considered nothing more than a "non-winning candidate". The extant sources are more than adequate to establish his notability; there are plenty more not cited that describe his writing and activism. Such an interesting person and entry, such a disservice to readers to delete. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not keep articles just because somebody might think the topic was "interesting". We keep articles based on whether the topic passes a notability criterion or not. I'd also note that for someone whose userpage identifies you as living in Washington DC, you sure seem a lot more interested in rushing to the ramparts for Winnipeg's local city councillors and political activists than you are the numerous articles about US politicians of comparable local notability who are also up for AFD right now. Are you maybe just wikistalking me to contradict any AFD I initiate on a politician instead of actually personally caring that much about Winnipeg? Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the nativist implications of why someone from the US might want to edit foreign pages, that comment is about as unfair as it is inaccurate. If you'll look at my edit history you'll see that I've taken identical positions on similar articles unrelated to you or Canada, like this one. What the Winnipeg entries seem to have in common, other than your nomination of them, is that they're better sourced and written than much of what appears on this page. I do think that Wikipedia should be about creating good content and that deletion should be a last resort, which is seldom the case in these discussions. In this instance, the subject is routinely referred to as the most prominent activist in the city. From just a couple articles, there are interesting, even fascinating anecdotes about his work, like how he persevered in his work even after even having his legs amputated.Bangabandhu (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per Bearcat.Winged Blades^Godric 09:06, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Pakhomov[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN - he was member of Lipetsk city council to be more precise. Known for a WP:ONEVENT. XXN, 00:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article says he was a member of parliament. Is this then inaccurate? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, is a mistake, the result of a bad translation. In Russia a member of a city council is also often called "deputy" (депутат). Mikhail Pakhomov was only a member of Lipetsk city council: "Липецкий предприниматель и депутат городского Совета Михаил Пахомов".[12] XXN, 16:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction done in article. XXN, 17:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can imagine the possibility of his death making him more notable than the norm, given the suggestion that it may have been a politically motivated assassination — but that would require a lot more substance and sourcing than has actually been shown. As written, this literally amounts to "he lived, he died, the end", with just one reference for each part of that statement, and that's just not enough. No prejudice against recreation if somebody can do much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick google search shows that there are a lot more references not included in this entry which could be used. Why delete, why not just add those in here? Deleting makes it difficult to improve the article and it is clear that that improvement is possible. Bangabandhu (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pakhomov was a member of the a city council for a major municipality in Russia (over 500,000 residents). Given our systemic bias against non-Anglo topics, I am inclined to agree with Bangabandhu that other sources can and should be added. Moreover, his death was reported as a worldwide event, with stories in the New York Times and other major news sources.--TM 21:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- mostly known for his death, so there's some WP:BIO1E going on, but also appears to be notable for being a shady businessman with a criminal past. Here's an extensive article in Spiegel detailing his 'career': "A Corrupt Politician's Ignoble Demise" (in English). K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Afd in a year unless he is stubbed. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:08, 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. The article was dreadfully promotional when nominated, but has been cleaned up by User:Unscintillating. I'll add it to my watchlist and I hope others will, too. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rona glassworks[edit]

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

Promotional article by two SPAs and I am turning up few, if any results from independent reliable sources. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions on account of their museum.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable Slovak company with long (more than 120 years) and interesting history and many important achievements. The Slovak article on the same topic is well developed and contains multiple reliable sources. Lack of sourcing seems to be the main objection of the nominator. As a person quite familiar with Slovak language I disagree, as I can confirm that the sources we need do exist. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, this book, mapping the history of the glassworks, was published by the Slovak National Gallery, a major Slovak art institution. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think the article needs to be blown up and redone in this case. It currently is quite a mess and serves as little more than promotional material as added by the two SPAs. I attempted to actually fix it but I couldn't make heads or tails of anything due to the articles current state. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ -- a well-developed Slowak Wiki article is a good indicator of notability and significance: RONA. This guidebook calls RONA "one of most popular Slovak glassmakers": link. I believe that's sufficient for a keep, as additional sources are likely to exist (or already present in Slovak wiki). K.e.coffman (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on second thoughts, per WP:TNT. I attempted to edit the article to reduce promo language, but I'm afraid it would not be any good. No prejudice to recreating with reliable sources should an unaffiliated editor decide to take on this task. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a shame if TNT deletion obscured the sources being used here, so I've dumped the whole list down below:

Extended content

Cited sources

<ref name="krištalín">"SMERNICA RADY z 15. decembra 1969 o aproximácii právnych predpisov členských štátov o krištáľovom skle (69/493/EHS)". 15 December 1969. Retrieved 2017-01-04.</ref>
<ref name="RONA: 2015 Annual Report">"RONA: Annual Report 2015" (PDF). Jan 31, 2017.</ref>
<ref name="Register of Financial Statements">"RONA: Register of Financial Statements". Jan 31, 2017.</ref>
<ref name="sme">Németh, Jana. "Keď je sklo ako med". SME. Bratislava, Slovakia. Retrieved 27 June 2014.</ref>
<ref name="RONA: 2015 Annual Report">"RONA: Annual Report 2015" (PDF). Jan 31, 2017.</ref>
<ref name="Register of Financial Statements">"RONA: Register of Financial Statements". Jan 31, 2017.</ref>
<ref>Poláčková, Dagmar; Büngerová, Vladimíra (2012). Cheers! to design! : 120 years of the glass works in Lednické Rovne. Slovak National Gallery, Bratislava, Slovakia. ISBN 978-80-8059-168-7.</ref>
<ref>Proceedings of the Norbert Kreidl Memorial Conference June 23–26, 2004 (2004). Building the Bridges between Glass Science and Glass Technology. Verlag der Deutschen Glastechnischen Gesellschaft, Offenbach (Germany). ISBN 3-921089-35-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)</ref>
<ref>"Slovak National Museum, Bratislava, Slovakia". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>
<ref>"Central Slovakia Museum, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>
<ref>"Slovak National Museum, Martin, Slovakia". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>
<ref>"Slovak National Gallery, Bratislava, Slovakia". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>
<ref>"Museum of Decorative Arts, Prague, Czech Republic". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>
<ref>"Corning Museum of Glass, NYC". Retrieved 1 February 2017.</ref>

Bibliography

Bárta Jan: Náčrt k dejinám sklářství na Slovensku. In: Sklářské rozhledy. 1947, č. 1, s. 9-12
Mondok Ján: Z dejín výroby skla v Lednických Rovniach
Húževka Milan: Hviezda výtvarného neba Karol Hološko. Bratislava: Ametyst, 2000, ISBN 9788089031580
Janovíčková Marta: Úžitkové umenie a remeslo po roku 1900. In: Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia – 20. storočie. Ed. Rusinová Zora, Bratislava: SNG, 2000, ISBN 8080590311, s. 237-241
Kolesár Zdeno: Genéza a vývoj dizajnu. In: Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia – 20. storočie. Ed. Rusinová Zora, Bratislava: SNG, 2000, ISBN 8080590311, s. 256-261
Schrammová Ágnes: Umenie a remeslo. In: Dejiny slovenského výtvarného umenia – 20. storočie. Ed. Rusinová Zora, Bratislava: SNG, 2000, ISBN 8080590311, s. 250-255
Michalides Pavol: Umelecké remeslá na Slovensku. Bratislava: Tatran, 1980
Michalides Pavol: Úžitková výtvarná tvorba na Slovensku. Od polovice 19. storočia po súčasnosť. Bratislava, Pallas, 1978
Michalides Pavol: Výtvarná kultúra výroby. Bratislava: Slovenské pedagogické nakladateľstvo, 1984
Palata Oldřich: Sklo na Světové výstavě Expo 58. In: Bruselský sen. Eds. Kramerová Daniela – Skálová Vanda, Praha: Arbor vitae, 2008, s. 116-131
Palata Oldřich: Československé sklo po Světové výstavě Expo 58. In: Bruselský sen. Eds. Kramerová Daniela – Skálová Vanda, Praha: Arbor vitae, 2008, s. 276-287
Toran Eduard: K umeniu okolo nás: užité umenie a priemyslové výtvarníctvo vo Sväze slovenských výtvarných umelcov. Bratislava: Slovenský fond výtvarného umenia, 1965
Račeková Jarmila: Sto rokov sklárne v Lednických Rovniach 1892 – 1992. Spojené sklárne, Lednické Rovne, 1992
Pišútová Irena – Bakošová Jindra: Katalóg slovenských sklární. In: Sborník Slovenského národného múzea. História, 17, 1977, s. 227-245
Pišútová Irena – Bakošová Jindra: Katalóg slovenských sklární. In.: Sborník Slovenského národného múzea. História, 18, 1978, s. 154
Pupala Štefan a kol.: 75 rokov Spojené sklárne Lednické Rovne 1892-1967. Spojené sklárne, Lednické Rovne, 1967

The point is that if this gets TNT deleted, nobody will have to request admin assistance just to find what sources were used. Nyttend (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the topic is notable, but some parts need to be cut right back, particularly the awards section, that could just list notable prizes (if any). Also in some parts it is so poorly written that you can't tell what they are trying so say. These too could go- Designers, Museum. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: may need a major rewrite, but topic is almost certainly notable. - Jmabel | Talk 02:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very least, the manor/museum merits an article, and some of this could be merged into that. - Jmabel | Talk 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the article still contains uncited & promotional content; for example: Rona_glassworks#Chronology_of_development_and_organizational_changes and Rona_glassworks#Calendar_of_innovations. I don't believe this article should be kept unless this is addressed. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does WP:TNT apply here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I'd say yes. The article is clearly a product of a single purpose account (see Special:Contributions/Karla1974) and contains much unencyclopedic content. It's poorly written and organised. I'd say, if the company is truly notable, a non SPA editor would come along to create an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Coffee's question remains pertinent: does WP:TNT apply here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TNT Delete this. There seems to be an excessive amount of promo and there also seems to be evidence of attempted machine translation. Unfortunately, I find this way too promotional (in fact the article is eligible for G11 as it is) and the effort required to sift through this is much more than what will be required to write it from scratch. I would say delete this and let another interested editor start it over again. -Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's possible to amend my original nomination, pretty much what Lemongirl942 said. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I applied a major rewrite. As per WP:PRESERVE, it is a policy to work together to fix problems. Unscintillating (talk) 21:20, 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) 05:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Achom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

At Talk:Frederick Achom#Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017, a new editor claiming to be representing the subject has relayed his request that the article be deleted because it contains "negative information". Normally when the notability is marginal and the subject requests deletion, AfDs result in delete. The question for this AfD is whether the notability is more than marginal. He was listed as one of the top 100 most important business people of African or Caribbean heritage in the UK Powerlist (referenced to the Guardian [13]) and "London's 1000 most influential people" (referenced to the Evening Standard [14]) both of which are short and vague descriptions of his activities. The remainder of the "positive coverage" is simply press releases and PR puff pieces, not published in mainstream media. However, his most detailed coverage in the UK mainstream is "negative". It relates to his conviction and prison term for a wine investment fraud in 2000 and a 2016 conviction for running a company while barred from doing so after a further fraud in 2002 (covered in the Financial Times [15], Evening Standard [16], and The Spectator [17] as well as the specialty wine press. Note that the WP article was created as a puff-piece and has since been subject to editing by multiple paid editors and socks of same attempting to restore the positive-only version. At least two have acknowledged payment for editing the article. For more background on what went on there see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 105#Frederick Achom. On balance, I consider the notability marginal. The only significant coverage of him has been a few articles about the wine fraud episode in 2000/2002 and a further charge stemming from the episode in 2016. The rest is puff-pieces or outright PR and very brief mentions on "The 100 list". I see no evidence of a lasting impact made by his activities or businesses. Given the subject's desire to be removed, I would support deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the subject is more than marginal and solicits funds worldwide, it is in this light that the page is (now) an excellent resource to anyone approached by Achom looking for some balance prior to entering a commercial relationship. Multiple awards and repeated coverage in clearly reliable press (FT, Forbes) whether in a negative/positive light, make this one to keep. The request to delete the article seems to me to be a final solution now that the article has gone from a glowing advertorial on the subject (see original verisons) to balanced. This is exactly what wikipedia is about people. Please keep. AMStephanyUK (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the notability is indeed more than marginal, something apparent in the fact of multiple awards and repeated coverage in obviously reliable sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noting that the notability is very marginal indeed, and that per WP:BLP and the fact that the person desires deletion, ties go in favour of deletion. Being listed as one of the 100 most powerful businessmen of African or Caribbean origin in the UK Powerlist is not, IMO, a "notable award" at all. Nor is being in the list of 1000 most powerful Londoners a "notable award." That list includes Bip Ling, Simon Hammerstein, Matt Hermer, Nick Jones, Piers Adam, Nick House, Charlie Gilkes, Duncan Stirling and a host of other "luminaries". It is not a "notable award" by any stretch of the imagination. A majority, as far as I can tell, of the "news sources" are actually simple "press releases" and, as such, far down the totem pole of Wikipedia. SPS press releases do not establish notability. Lists of thousands of non-notable people are not "notable awards" at all. And the "repeated coverage" is non-existent. For example the New York Times cite has ZERO mention of Achom. Yet is one of the "reliable sources" averred to exist. It is about "The Scotch" and not about Achom, does not mention Achom, does not imply that Achom is notable, and is a clear case of adding purely tangential "sources" to a BLP devoid of actual sources. [18] is a press release. [19] is a press release. In fact, almost every source for his business is - a press release, or barely rewritten press release. Delete it. Collect (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am thinking that Achom could be notable enough for an article because of his high-society visibility coupled with his multiple convictions and run-ins with the law - not so much for his "business successes". Shearonink (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Marginal notability. Leaving aside his criminal activities, his companies/clubs were the main focus of most of the popular press. There are some 'Black X etc etc' list entries but nothing really high profile (or even medium profile). Regarding his wine fraud - he had the bad luck to be caught at a time when a crackdown on wine fraud was in place. A few years earlier or later and he would have been lucky to hit the press at all. Given the subject also requests deletion, I am going with 'marginal notability & subject request'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per delete votes. I'm always against the negative effects of Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really have much to do with guidelines about whether an article should be deleted... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you read where I said "per delete votes"? Darreg (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (noting later merge !vote) . As before, in my opinion Mr. Achom's notability doesn't rest so much upon his asserted successes but upon his various legal problems he's had over the years coupled with his visibility in the UK media. On a smaller scale it could be said to be reminiscent of Bernie Madoff's notability - Madoff's notability does not rest so much upon his asserted successes but upon his high-society lifestyle coupled with his notorious legal issues and his subsequent convictions. Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be aware that there was a recent removal of sources at the article. I've opened a discussion at the article's talkpage. Please weigh in there if you wish. Shearonink (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wasn't going to bother commenting but Shearonink has encouraged me. This article is an attack, it collects minor obscure sources scrapes the internet to publish, yes, "publish" as in a primary way, content that is negative in nature about a living person, to primary publish is not what wikipedias purpose is and such as this is the worst of wikipedia. For example http://www.finsmes.com/2015/05/rosemont-group-capital-partners-to-back-20-startups-by-2017.html this is a weblink in the article and there are many similar . Please note the article creator is a blocked paid editor with multiple sockpuppets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Reuvengrish/Archive - Govindaharihari (talk) 21:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look at this content from the biography and consider the quality of the weblinks - Achom was an investor in The Bennett Oyster Bar, Brasserie & Wine Store with Ray Duhaney. http://eatoutmagazine.co.uk/bennett-oyster-bar-launch-battersea-next-year In 2013 Bennett Oyster, Bar & Brasserie was closed for insolvency. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-60092-1554881 basically scraping the www and aggregating anything to be found and publishing it using wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With regards to notability, I do not think this is at all a question. I've seen AfDs voted and closed 'keep' with just the occasional trivial mention in 2-3 respectable sources (something I dispute as being 'significant'). With regards to the subject's desire to be deleted, I'm not sure of the official stance of the organisation, however my personal view is if it is accurate and neutral with every single contentious issue backed up by reliable and trustworthy sources as per WP:RS, it should remain. This is really nothing more than a compendium of public domain information. I do not necessarily believe in the right of someone to influence what information the project presents based on personal preference, even if it is about them. I only support this when the info is not accurate or not sourced. Rayman60 (talk) 10:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be a case of Wikipedia:Attack page. Secondly some of the editors that worked on the page are already blocked for "edit warring" and "Conflict of Interest". The artcle creator is also blocked. There's also evidence of undisclosed paid editing as seen in the nominator's post. Marginal notability is also a factor here. Most of the references border on the negative aspects of the subject. Finally, the subject Mr. Achom as said earlier also wants the page deleted whereas millions of others both notable and non-notable want to be on Wikipedia. So, let the page be taken down.Laosilika (talk) 09:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the beginning of the edit request at Talk:Frederick Achom:

Hello! I was asked by Frederick Achom to make a request for deleting this page. He is requesting that because of the negative information posted in the page. He also assured me that the person that created the page has been blocked because it was discovered he was paid to do so.

Ok. So. 1)Request has apparently been made by the subject himself but is there an OTRS ticket saying such? Does WP have any kind of confirmation that this editor actually speaks for Achom? 2)Does it matter for the purposes of this discussion if the subject has made such a request? Well now...it shouldn't. I am certain that there are many WP:BLP subjects who would like negative (but sourced) information deleted from their articles. Does WP acquiesce to their requests? No. So. The Wiki-question now under consideration on this page is: notability and that alone. After innumerable COI editors - paid and not - have had their editorial mitts on the article deleting the negative information, recrafting the article into a puff piece again and again, now the subject apparently just wants the whole thing to go away. So, let's take a look at the various Notability guidelines that might be in play in this situation.

There's WP:PERPETRATOR (which in this case would be about Achom's run-ins with the law) which states in part: The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities. So, if the victim can be thought of as being notable enough, then the obverse should also be true - that the perpetrator of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities.

So, for the purposes of this discussion let's say that a national celebrity who commits a crime can be the subject of an article. Is Achom a national celebrity in the UK? I would think so. But is he notable enough for a standalone article? I think Achom is notable enough of a subject for an article but looks like quite a few people think not. I think that there is an alternative to deletion (of the entire content of this article) that has not been mentioned yet. It would seem to be a good fit for Merging into Investment wine.

I would like to mention that some editors in this discussion are mentioning that this article is a WP:ATTACK which is defined as "a page, in any namespace, that exists primarily to disparage or threaten its subject; or biographical material that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced or poorly sourced. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to speedy deletion." Well, if this article is only a poorly-sourced or unsourced attack page, then why wasn't it subjected to speedy deletion? Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the 1000 most influential people in London at any given time are not all default notable. We should err on the side of privacy with living individuals unless there is a strong case to keep the article, and there is no strong case to keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Shearonink, that there is no way this could be characterised as an WP:ATTACK page and deleted on that basis. In fact, if anything it covers his non-criminal activities and alleged achievements in inordinate depth given their triviality and their references to press releases and obvious PR plants. It certainly was not created as an attack. It was a paid-for article verging on the advertorial created in 2013 and thanks to the ministrations of multiple paid editors and socks became even more so over the next 10 months, until an IP added the information about the fraud (quickly reverted). It wasn't until 2015 that a series of IPs re-added the material about the fraud convictions with references, and then yet more paid editors kept trying to have the material removed until the page was finally protected from non-autoconfirmed editing. A few paid editors who were autoconfirmed kept trying to remove the fraud convictions, but to no avail (and rightly so, the fraud assertions are referenced to highly reliable sources). This is what I am sure has led to the current request for deletion. Where I do disagree with Shearonink is on Achom's status as a "national celebrity" irrespective of his convictions for fraud. A few puff pieces, obvious PR plants, and his inclusion on the "PowerList" do not confer national celebrity. The kind of coverage he has received in that respect is non-existent in the mainstream national press. Note that much of the stuff that Achom has put about in the press is vastly exaggerated. His "ownership" of the The Scotch nightclub is a case in point. He was not the owner at all, simply an investor and a rather minor one. See this. Incidentally, shortly after he invested in the club this edit was made to the Scotch article by an obvious paid editor. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I think the best outcome for this article would be to merge the content about Achom's wine businesses & convictions into Investment wine. *(Not sure if this should be counted as a change or not from my above comments since my previous post about this was to Keep.) Shearonink (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the subject maintains his own 'puff' site [20] which features no mention of his past criminal cases, the article justifies its existence by providing a crowd-edited, credibly-sourced perspective. As someone up-thread noted, the negative material in the article is more than outweighed by the positive. 110.148.115.116 (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable for brushes with the law. Separately, this will perhaps be a lesson to marginally notable businesspeople to not pay to have articles on them created. (I note that the article was created by Special:Contributions/Reuvengrish who has been blocked for sockpuppetry). K.e.coffman (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. The subject of the article runs their own site that portrays them in a very positive light, ignoring anything remotely negative. If they really did want to disappear from public and business life, then agreeing to their request to remove the article from Wikipedia would have more substance. Our readers might reasonably expect Wikipedia to have a page about them, so we should keep our more nuanced NPOV biography. Edwardx (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced with public domain information, this page provides a public resource as per AMStephanyUK's rationale. No Swan So Fine (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:

1. Notability is clearly marginal (only tilting to negatives) and in line with WP:BLP.

2. The subject desires deletion in line with WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE

3. There have been several cases of undisclosed paid editing both for and against the subject.

4.The article creator is paid to create this and he or she has been blocked.

5. Some editors that worked on the page are already blocked as a result of undisclosed paid editing.

6.The current state of the article seems as if it's meant to defame the subject for whatever reasons!

7. The page has been a battleground. This is against the policy of wikipedia which says"Wikipedia is not a battleground"

I believe wikipedia is much more that this stuff. Let these points be considered before the final decision is taken pls. So, I agree with all others that voted delete here.Fatima 77 (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatima, "this stuff" represents Wikipedia at its very best. Though the subject desired its creation, it has now overcome its spurious start by paid editing and has become a well referenced biography. It is not Wikipedia's fault that the individual has lived their lives in such a manner, we would opposed the deletion of political biographies on the grounds of "negativity" or "battleground" status. The subject now seeks its deletion, we should oppose any further opacitising of references. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take GREAT exception to the allegation that the above editor has made that there have been "several cases of undisclosed paid editing both for and against the subject".[emphasis mine] It is a matter of record here on Wikipedia's pages that there have indeed been multiple instances of editors being paid to make edits favorable to the subject, I am unaware, however, of any editor being paid to edit against the subject. Seriously? This editor is making the allegation that some unknown entity has been paying editors to make edits against the subject? Who would pay for such editing?

And, by the way, there is no defamation if the statements under consideration are verifiable and true. Shearonink (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More Insight I just stumbled upon this thread. I believe it throws more light to the questions raised by Shearonink and the issues on ground. Have a look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive919#Persistent_adding_of_unsourced_puffery_on_page_Frederick_Achom

Both editors involved have been blocked. One was in favor of Achom, the other was against. You can see accusations of paid editing both for and against the subject. Indeed, the page has been a battleground.Fatima 77 (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a separate matter entirely - those particular editors were blocked for their bad behavior. Aliopuka was blocked for having multiple accounts/socking see here, NihartouJason was also blocked for being a sock. and these "accusations" you speak of that these two socking editors were flinging back&forth at each other are in and of themselves absolutely meaningless. If it was a matter worth investigating then a case should have been filed on the appropriate Admin-noticeboard. I actually remember NihartouJason, I interacted with him a few times, he was indeed a sock but he was also very open about the fact that he was paid by someone to make the Achom article into a puff-piece. I am unaware of any editor being paid to edit this article in a negative-POV way, if there was a case filed at some WP-noticeboard please do post it here.

Oh, and the fact that the article itself has been a "battleground"?... Wikipedia does not just delete content simply because the subject is a battleground. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 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 no consensus. But clean this article up regardless. Kurykh (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deltopia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Floatopia

Articles for deletion/Deltopia

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

I think it is time to revisit this article for being deleted. Back in 2009, there was no consensus, suggesting that it ought to be looked over again to see if it is relevant. I'm nominating this article to be deleted because it fails WP:TRIVIAL with major third party sources, and it is only covered extensively through some local media, which lacks WP:GNG. The local coverage, as DreamGuy mentioned in the previous discussion is mere trivial coverage. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Not sure this AfD has been formatted correctly, @Quidster4040: as it's not appearing on the daily log. In any event, if this is a true AfD nomination, I vote for keep. Anyone with a basic knowledge of Google search will turn up result after result of both local and national coverage. In a quick, 2 second search, I found sourcing from Daily Mail UK, Fox News, CNN, International Business Times, Complex magazine, Gawker, NY Daily News, Los Angeles Times, Miami New Times, and of course more local flavors such as Santa Barbara Independent and KEYT. Easily passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it Yes, this is a !vote from WP:ATA, and is intended to be refutable by editors who want to maintain this POV sink about alcohol excesses, college rebellion, and litterbugs. ~~I looked for places that this is used on Wikipedia, and it hasn't been worth mentioning in the articles at either the colleges or local communities.~~ Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This topic was mentioned at Isla Vista, California but not linked properly (it linked to the old name, Floatopia), so I just fixed that. Isla Vista is the unincorporated place where Deltopia takes place; it isn't relevant to the articles about the nearby cities. It was also mentioned at Large Emergency Event Digital Information Repository but not linked, so I fixed that too. I want to emphasize, as you acknowledged, that "I don't like it" is not a valid argument - as encyclopedia writers, we are not supposed to pass judgment on topics, but to cover them neutrally to inform our readers. Having few links from other articles also isn't necessarily a problem (WP:ORPHS). Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I was aware of the "See also" at IV, which seems to mean that I erroneously only searched for "Floatopia". The two links you've cited increase the value of the article. Unscintillating (talk) 00:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IAR delete without prejudice to anyone who actually wants to come along and write an adequate article on the topic. Regardless of the fact that it technically passes GNG—which it does—this is one of the poorest articles on Wikipedia, and consists effectively of a long list of anecdotes, trivia and incidental mentions, jammed together to create the appearance of a noteworthy topic. Given the time it's existed without anyone making any attempt at improvement, the "someone will improve it if we leave it in place" argument doesn't stand up. ‑ Iridescent 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can appreciate the IAR prefix to your vote as the reasoning doesn't follow the current set of policies and consensus. While anyone would be hard-pressed to defend the encyclopedic quality of this article (and I'm certainly not going to defend it!), in my opinion an AfD discussion should determine whether the article has the notability required to justify a standalone article. I believe that in this case, and to your point above, yes it most certainly does pass WP:GNG, which warrants a stand alone article. Again, to your point, I think there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. Article-quality or content shouldn't/doesn't factor in to notability, otherwise all stub-classed articles would be immediately deleted for (lack of) content quality alone. GauchoDude (talk) 14:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as all the sources offered as "significant" and "sufficient" are in fact only simple stories and the article as a whole is unconvincing for a both improved and sufficient article. Such common event stories as these have nothing else convincing but the basic event itself. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article can be improved with the many available reliable third-party sources; it shouldn't be deleted just because the current state isn't very good (see WP:RUBBISH, WP:NEGLECT). This topic has substantial coverage from regional news, including the Santa Barbara county press and San Luis Obispo county; topics don't need to be of substantial nationwide interest to pass WP:GNG. And it has coverage outside central California - the 2014 riot was covered by Associated Press, noted as a large college riot in this list, covered by the LA Times in this article and several others. From 2013, a related death reported by Bay Area news. Note that you can find more sources by searching for "Floatopia" (the previous name), such as a LA Times article in 2010 and this NBC Los Angeles article in 2010. I believe this Wall Street Journal article about San Diego discusses Isla Vista as well, but it's paywalled so I can't see it right now. It's also part of this article giving context to the murders in 2014. Regional public radio covered it in 2015. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Update: the 2014 riot was also covered by CNN and NPR. Dreamyshade (talk) 09:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources. Concerns about tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. See also: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and analysis since no one else has: I see that each single of those are simply for the event itself, so WP:NOTNEWS applies, because even the simplest ones are simply general stories about it; the fact this event itself has only occurred a casual 3 times (2010, 2011 and 2014) shows it hasn't been consistent enough and in fact, the latest ones were everyday stories. Had there been a larger significance here, that would've been different but this overall has a better form of being in another article. WP:GNG is not a policy, and WP:NOT in fact is, where it says "Wikipedia is many things but it is not a newspaper", which is the case here. Since sources have been offered, I examined them each time but I still see nothing but general journalism, of which is not an automatic factor of notability here. We also cannot copyedit something of which has not occurred again, which is why it wouldn't matter since there's no meaningful changes to be made (event has not happened since 3 years ago, put aside the few recalling news the year after it). In fact, the article itself has nothing but simple general information about each time it happened, thus WP:NOTNEWS still applies as we're not an event gazette. SwisterTwister talk 03:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The current article says Floatopia/Deltopia happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014. Deltopia also happened in 2012, 2013, 2015, and 2016, not mentioned in the article yet. The 2013 Deltopia had a balcony collapse that injured several people. Floatopia also happened in 2006 as a smaller event. Overall: it's an event that has had 12,000 attendees some years, has been happening annually for about 10 years, has substantial regional news coverage, had a riot reported in nationwide news, and has inspired similar events in at least two other California college communities. There's enough material here for a decent Wikipedia article; Isla Vista, California should have a couple sentences about it, but stuffing much into it would unbalance that article. Dreamyshade (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a UCSB student newspaper article from today about UCSB preparing for Deltopia 2017 by planning to spend "$30,000 to $40,000 on advertisements urging partygoers to stay away from Isla Vista during Deltopia weekend". Deltopia involves notable expense from the California public university system as well as the Santa Barbara County police department (with support from other regional and state police departments - Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Monica, Ventura, California Highway Patrol). It has regional news coverage every year because it's a topic of public interest. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Does WP:TNT apply?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retain status quo, i.e. weak keep - Even if the topic doesn't meet GNG, the topic already meets other parts of WP:notability, like WP:NRV. If it doesn't meet WP:N, then it already meets WP:V#Notability. Somehow, the "delete" comments I see are (implicitly) based on attitudes toward student culture gone running amok. The "delete" arguments convince me that merger is possible, but I can't think of a good target article to merge into. Looking at the intro, the event has been done by UCSB students. The content may still have value. If default to kept, maybe I can ask other related WikiProjects to improve the article. George Ho (talk) 21:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources brought above by User:Dreamyshade are persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article needs a bit of work, enough sources have been found to establish notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an event of local interest, with correspondingly mostly local sources. Reminds me of "First World Problems" -- I doubt this article would have existed if the event occurred in Kenya for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K.e.coffman, isn't that more a problem with bias on the part of the sources (which are used to determine notability)? It seems like that's something that should be protested to the biased media organizations, and that it doesn't necessarily affect the article's inclusion on Wikipedia, at least with regard to current policy... (correct me if I'm wrong!) (P.S.: I found this discussion through a Twitter post; not sure if this might be WP:CANVASS-y at all... https://twitter.com/brittagus/status/835583491769192449) —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By "First World Problems" I meant this section: Deltopia#Repercussions. "Legal citations and incidents reports"? Barely enough to make local news on the day of the event, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT (but don't start over). First world stuff and nonsense indeed, User:K.e.coffman, and a regrettable reflexion of the notion that if it involves students at a prestigious American (or British) university getting drunk, we need an article about it. Kind of the silly side of Wikipedia:Systemic bias. I don't know about Kenya, but there are at least two similar yearly events not a hundred miles from where I live. I hope they don't have articles.. now you've made me afraid to look. Bishonen | talk 17:57, 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) 19:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gord Steeves[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass, and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based entirely on either primary sources or routine coverage of the election results themselves, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city councilors in a city of this size are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This politician has a colorful history and one that is of interest to readers familiar with Winnipeg politics and others, like myself, who just like reading interesting entries. In terms of Wikipedia guidelines, he clearly satisfies GNG. Now it seems that editors who frequent these pages have developed a "consensus" about certain cities as being not notable enough for inclusion. I wonder how many editors were involved as I know I am astonished that this could be determined with any degree of impartiality. I hope that common sense will prevail and wholesale deletion of notable entries merely because of a city's population size will stop. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that his wife said something stupid on social media once is neither a notability claim in and of itself, nor substantively enough about him to clear the "notable because media coverage of him exists" bar — the article is not about Gord, but about Lorrie. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except he's not only notable because of his wife. That's just one of many points that could be added to make this a rich, meaningful entry. He's run for mayor, among other things. I fear that on the one hand, editors are wary of allowing notability on one event, but at the same time, they're wary of notability based on a multitude of many, small events. So the only qualification for notability becomes when there is a presumption of notability for someone's position. Which is really unfair to all these folks from Winnipeg.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running for mayor doesn't assist his notability at all — a politician's notability is measured against WP:NPOL by the levels of office they have or haven't held, not by the levels of office they ran for and lost. Running for mayor and losing does not make a city councillor any more notable than he would be if he hadn't run for mayor at all — it only boosts his notability if he wins the election and thereby holds the mayoralty.

And when it comes to local politicians of purely local notability, our job is not to be "fair" to the locals — it's to be encyclopedic. Canada alone has about 4,500 municipalities with local municipal councils, each of which has anywhere from 5 to 45 members depending on the city, resulting in tens of thousands of articles about municipal councillors for Canada alone if "exists as a municipal councillor" were all it took to get someone into Wikipedia. Multiply that by 180 other countries in the world, many of which are up to ten times larger than Canada and have up to 50 or 60 thousand municipalities with local councils, and that's simply unsustainable — which is one of the reasons why our notability rules are designed to exclude most municipal councillors unless they can be properly demonstrated as significantly more notable than the norm.

In an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, our articles frequently get misused as either public relations hagiographies by the subjects themselves and/or their fans, or as magnets for attack editing and criticism by their opponents — and our quality control model, of relying on the oversight of other editors to prevent those things from happening and/or remove them from the article when they do, works well on high-profile topics but falls flat on its ass very quickly the narrower a person's sphere of notability gets. An inappropriate edit to Donald Trump or Justin Trudeau or Theresa May will get caught within minutes, because a lot of people are reading and watching and monitoring those articles — but an inappropriate edit to a city councillor's article can linger in the article for months because the article isn't generating enough traffic to get bad edits caught and dealt with. So that's why we have to exclude a lot of topics of purely "local to a single area" notability — not because we're dissing them, but because below a certain level of nationalized prominence we can't guarantee an adequate level of maintenance.

So the way to make a city councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is not to state that the people in that person's own city might be interested — for one thing, if Winnipeggers were that interested, then the article would already be in a much better state than it is, because they would have edited it into something more substantive and better sourced than this. Rather, the key to making a city councillor notable enough is to demonstrate a reason why readers beyond the city itself might be interested: not why would a Winnipegger care, but why should a Torontonian or a Bostonian or an Angeleno care. Why would a large number of people be interested in reading and editing and maintaining and quality-controlling it. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I'm just seeing it now and wish I'd seen it earlier. There are some good points in here. The most important one that hadn't occurred to me was how aggressively enforcing high standards of notability is needed to reduce the number of pages so that there's more eyes on existing pages to fight bad edits. I need to think about the implications of that some more. I really really don't like stuff that's unsourced, way more than I am bothered by stuff that might not be considered significant enough for inclusion, but didn't think about how they were interlinked. They're definitely related. But if we were concerned about the level of traffic to these pages - which is important - I think a better way to address that would be to increase the number of links between entries. I haven't seen the number of links to an article mentioned as a consideration once in these discussions; it seems like that ought to be an important point for whether an article stays or goes if we want to make sure there are enough eyes on it.

I know we've talked about the city size issue a lot but another consideration around that is that its really the number of people they're representing rather than anything to do with the municipality itself. In NYC there are thousands of people in official positions far, far less significant than these Canadian councilors. So if we need a shorthand way to gauge significance I think we can do much better than anything related to the city's ranking. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One more point/question: Are all previous editors to an entry notified when its considered for AFD? It seems like that ought to be done as a matter of policy. They have work and time invested in this and are well suited to see if the article can be brought up to whatever standard we're applying. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a non-notable politician and unsuccessful candidate for higher offices. The sources are routine and election related. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bordertown (miniseries)[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable miniseries. Searches find mostly details from unreliable sources such as IMDB and sales of DVDs, but not much in the way of reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Searching is not easy for this one, but eventually I found an entire chapter of an academic book dedicated to this Australian miniseries [21] along with a few reviews [22][23][24]. I added some of this to the article, and I think its notability is clear now. The academic article also has footnotes listing additional commentary on the series. In addition, this show may have won an AWGIE Award, as stated by Screen Australia [25], but I would prefer to find a firmer source for that statement before adding it to the text. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is usual to keep TV shows that featured notable actors (whether or not they were notable when it was filmed). -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 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) 01:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This was a major Australian miniseries of the time. It did win an AWGIE Award for Mini-Series Original in 1996. The source is here.Boneymau (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply as nominator Other sources put forward have not been particularily strong (DVD retailers, etc) but given it won a recognised award such as this, I would agree notability is there. It would be good if you can add this detail and source to the article Boneymau. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - DoneBoneymau (talk) 03:13, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Cabinet Secretaries Who have served more than Eight Years[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and listcruft CatcherStorm ^talk 14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. After all, there are lists of female Cabinet Secretaries and the like. There aren't many cabinet secretaries who have been there forever, but more than enough to have an article dedicated to them. There was one who was appointed by McKinley who was basically ignored by his two sucessors and lasted sixteen years, three secretaries of the treasuries lasted more than ten years, much of FDR's cabinet lasted longer than he did and a few of Harding's appointees lasted well into the Hoover administration Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above argument actually makes the point for why this is an "indiscriminate" list of cruft, not comparable to list of top-level distinctions such as female or another demographic. Delete per nom. JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

how is it not comparable and "indiscriminate"? This is a very specific list. Besides, there are lots and lots of lists of officials by "length of tenure." This is very discriminate. Eight years isn't arbitrary, after all, only ONE President has been in office for more than eight years. That there's a very select group of cabinet secretaries that have lasted a decade or more is quite notable.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs sources, preferably sources that specifically discuss the tenure length of the subjects. But I hardly think this is indiscriminate. Given the structure of the executive branch, this sort of thing is rarer than you'd think. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sourcing is needed, but this list is actually very much WP:DISCRIMINATE. This isn't random information, but rather it is information that is very precisely defined. Lepricavark (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is a WP:FORK; mere listcruft. Drdpw (talk) 15:58, 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) 02:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per UltraExactZZ, Lepricavark, Arglebargle79. This is not a random list, it is clearly defined, and given how few of these there are out of all who have held the positions, it is definitely of interest. Probably useful for historical and political studies, whether of the positions themselves or of broader topics.
Drdpw, what do you mean by "List is a WP:FORK"? To quote that project page, "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia." All the references are to U.S. Government pages (*.gov). If you have a relevant guideline in mind, please name and link it; if not, you have no argument.
Some comments about the article as a whole:
- Criterion and title: Have there been other Cabinet Secretaries who served under more than one president, even if for less than eight years? For example, appointed during President_x's second term and reappointed by President_x+1, but didn't stay a total of eight years? Frankly, when I saw the title of this article I thought the whole idea was to list cabinet officers who had served under more than one president, rather than ones whose tenure in office exceeded a criterion that just happens to be the limit on how long a president can serve. And that, I believe, would provide a much more appropriate title for the article, especially if there have been cabinet officers who served more than one president but for less than eight years.
  And what about service in different cabinet positions? Would someone who served in two presidents' cabinets but in different capacities (if there ever have been any, which seems more unlikely the more I think of it) be included?
  Even in terms of nomenclature, the current title is inaccurate. The second member of this elite group (I've just added a "Years of service" column to the table, which allows a chronological sort) was Attorney General William Wirt, who was not technically a "Secretary" at all.
- Title format: "List of United States Cabinet Secretaries Who have served more than Eight Years" — What's with this scattershot use of capital letters? Sure, the first word and the name of the country are no-brainers, and "Cabinet Secretaries" has some justification even though it's not being used as a title with a name. But "Who"? "Eight"? "Years"? According to MOS:TITLE,
  [Unlike the usual rule for English-language titles], for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized.
So, if the title is not substantively changed, it should at least become "List of United States Cabinet Secretaries who have served more than eight years"; if all the mods I've suggested are adopted, something like "List of United States Cabinet members who have served under more than one president"; else, something between.
- If the article is kept, all these sub-bullets of my comments will belong on its talk page, but I thought it worthwhile to bring them up here.
- Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First off. William Wirt was in the Cabinet. Thus he was a "Secretary." In the US, a "Secretary" is the same as a European "Minister." Second, this list is people who were in office a VERY LONG time. All but one served more than a decade. Cabinet Secretaries usually don't last long, usually two or three years. Those who served under more than one president usually were there when a president died and didn't last very long under the "former Vice President." For example,Taylor's cabinet resigned en masse almost immediately as they didn't like Filmore very much. They technically served in his administration for a week or two. From the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries, the old president's cabinet would meet with the new president the day after the inauguration and leave office the day after that. Does this mean they served under more than one president? Reagan was nice enough to appoint a couple of Bush's people to the cabinet in his last year in office but they didn't actually serve any longer than most in the cabinet. Franklin Roosevelt was unique and will remain so due to the 22nd amendment.

It might be nice to have a list/article on Cabinet members by length of service, but there are too many of them and most served less than one presidential term. That's why this list is necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:30, 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) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Thnidu: If not for this AfD I would have moved the page to "List of United States Cabinet members who have served more than eight years". When it is closed I will move it unless someone else moves it first. (I don't have any fundamental objection to making it "...who served under more than one president" but I think you should gather some consensus first, and in the meantime I don't think there would be any harm having it at a slightly nicer title in the meantime.) - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CRGreathouse: Thank you. That will be a help. --Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Arglebargle79: (Please use {{ ping}} when asked to. That and similar templates, or a user page link like [[User:arglebargle79]], will ensure that the user is notified. -- I indented your last paragraph above to match the level of the rest of your comment.)

You make good points about duration of term vs. raw number of presidents served under.

You wrote

First off. William Wirt was in the Cabinet. Thus he was a "Secretary."

^{[citation needed]}. Otherwise it's WP:OR, and I'm not even sure what it means: "Secretary" = "Cabinet officer"? That sounds circular:

"Secretary" = "Cabinet officer"
Wirt was a Cabinet officer.
Therefore Wirt was a Secretary.

No, I won't buy it. Where does it, where doesanything, say that? And analogy to titles in other systems of government ("Minister") is even further off target; let's leave them out of it altogether.

Cabinet of the United States says

Aside from the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General when it was a Cabinet office, they all receive the title of Secretary. Members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President; the President may dismiss or reappoint them (to other posts) at will.

I don't think it is wise to confuse the reader by focusing on the terminology. That said, though, perhaps the title of this should be changed to use "Cabinet members" instead of "Secretaries". It's obvious from the definition of their posts that the Attorney General and Postmaster General are Cabinet members. It is in no way obvious that they are "Secretaries". --Thnidu (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments above. This seems like a clean cut case, but my neutral-ish comment doesn't reflect my position as such. I see no reason why indiscriminate would apply here, and thus see no reason why this article should not be kept. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons described by Lepricavark. Eight years has special significance because it is the term limit of a US president. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:20, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar M. Alcaraz[edit]

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

Non notable person, Various copyright issues, no good version to revert to. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 17:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination but would support a recreation by a neutral editor if notability can actually be established. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ANYBIO being a Presidential Medal of Merit recipient.--RioHondo (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, but would support a recreation by a neutral editor if notability can actually be established, also suggest a look at Sherman L. Kiser, Samuel Stagg, and Joseph Stevenot for the same issues.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - As stated above, I would support a recreation if notability can be established, and there were no copyright issues in the recreation Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Stubify per WP:BATHWATER. The subject is notable but the article is a mess. Use the sources already present to pare it down, rather than wait for someone else to recreate it. The sources are usable and it's still reasonably salvageable.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:24, 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) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've went ahead and stubified it. GNG does not require that sources be available online and free, which appears to be the issue here. The burial in the national cemetery is verifiable and the award of the medal does meet WP:ANYBIO The existence of the bibliography in this article with specific dates and issues is what tips it for me. If we had access to these sources in front of us, it would be reasonable to assume that the coverage would be substantial enough to meet GNG. This is the basis of most of the exceptions to GNG anyway, and now that it has been stubified I don't see it doing harm to the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin about copyright: The copied text does not appear to be a violation of Filipino copyright law since like the United States, government works do not have copyright, and all of these seem to be works of the Filipino government. The one that is questionable is the monument citation because it is uncelar who wrote it, and if rev del were to be applied, it would need to be applied to all edits until this diff [26]. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of revered boy scouts who died on duty. There are literally monuments to these guys. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 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. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midsommer[edit]

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

This film article proves quite difficult to improve as well as find reliable sources due to its lack of notability. Deleting it would be the better option. Blue sphere 15:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: It's hard to find strong English-language sources and I don't speak Danish, but a 2009 PROD was contested because "film has been reviewed by multiple RS, won a Robert Award and was nominated for several others (Denmark's highest filming honor)". The sources I found only suggest one nomination, for a song from the soundtrack. I've added that to the article. Between that and being remade as a film starring a major actress (Amanda Seyfried) I think this is worth keeping, but I wouldn't fight for it hard. Mortee (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction - the song won Mortee (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search: Director and title: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment @Bluesphere: try the above search. I can source it, and so can you if you speak the language. — Sam Sailor 21:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 21:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Film passes requirements for WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Multiple reviews by major national newspapers [27], [28], [29]. Won the Robert Award (Danish Academy Award) for best original song and Jury Award at the Leeds International Film Festival [30]. Received some analysis (5 pages) in book manuscript by a Swedish university professor Niels Penke, ed. (2013). Der skandinavische Horrorfilm: Kultur- und ästhetikgeschichtliche Perspektiven [The Scandinavian Horrorfilm: cultural and aesthetic-historical perspectives] (in German). Bielefeld. p. 302-307.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) There should be enough significant coverage here to pass notability criteria. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, mate! I shall add some of these in to the article. Someone should take up the mantle with regard to the Danish sources as I don't speak that language. While Google Translate might be a good idea, I might mistakenly add the wrong infos and I wouldn't want that. Blue sphere 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've done a slight copy-edit and added references. I think it's good enough as a start article now. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have recent edits saved this article from deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG with the added sources. — Sam Sailor 02:42, 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 keep. Rlendog (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deng Adel[edit]

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

As a college basketball player Adel has no default notability. The sources are largely just routine coverage of games and performances by players, and not enough to justify an article at this time. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On watching him play on 2/22/2017 (and being unfamiliar wit team members), my wife & I both felt a strong feeling to find out his background (we always turn to Wikipedia first); a great story of family fleeing a desperate situation and then him rising through many opportunities! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poptop43 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources in Australia (as listed in the article already) document his unusual rise to his current position. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. WWGB (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see sufficient for GNG depth, almost entirely routine sports reporting. TOOSOON. Compare with Rachel Antoniadou, who has represented Australian internationally and won Gold at that level. Aoziwe (talk) 03:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that you can't find two good articles among the sources already in the article? Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. I just do not see the relativity of notability to many other AfDs. It seems to rely a lot on minor / trivial events in the overall scheme of things. I am happy to stand corrected but given that the article is almost entirely about his basketball activity how does it meet WP:NBASKETBALL. I suspect it is just TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the history of WP:NBASKETBALL, but it doesn't appear to be an applicable guideline for this topic, while GNG is applicable. Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I do not follow your point. Other editors here too have thought the article was related to basketball and below it has been sort listed against basketball. Why do you think basketball is not relevant here? Aoziwe (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the article meets WP:GNG it doesn't matter if it meets a sport-specific guideline or not. The sport-specific guideline is meant to illustrate who would meet GNG. GNG is the standard. Saying something meets or doesn't meet WP:NBASKETBALL alone is not a good reason to keep or delete any article. Rikster2 (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not much to see here, lots of sources are already to be found just by looking at the article, sources from two continents no less...easy GNG, not a hoax. No one is arguing IAR here. Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, passing WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 04:37, 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) 01:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for reasons previously discussed. João Do Rio (talk) 05:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as discussed above, so it doesn't matter whether he meets WP:NBASKETBALL. Smartyllama (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As noted, meets GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 16:13, 23 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) 05:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket.Chat[edit]

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

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article about an open source competitor to Slack that appears to have been written by the software's creator. It gets a fair amount of press coverage, but mainly in articles about possible alternatives for workplaces to use instead of Slack, or in software listings of similar products. I don't feel the coverage amounts to what is needed under WP:ORGDEPTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete: (Note: I declined the speedy deletion on this article) At least from online sources, this software appears to have a large number of sources covering it to a very minimal extent (most articles simply discuss it briefly as a competitor to Slack. I concur that it contains too trivial coverage to meet WP:GNG. It is relatively new software so it might be simply a case of an article written too soon. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per new sources below, particularly the InfoWorld source, and article improvement, revised position to Keep. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no question about it, a clear spam campaign with all the contributed signs. SwisterTwister talk 04:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gabriel Engel from Rocket.Chat here. I don't understand how, a community of contributors and users of an open source project trying bring awareness to a free alternative to expensive paid collaboration applications, can be considered a spam campaign. Honestly, this is disheartening. Our project is a result of the collaboration of 100s of developers from over 40 countries. It has been used in many government institutions, universities, NGOs, companies and has been scientifically proven promote innovative entrepreneurship on a experiment by the Centre for Economic Policy Research. If Wikipedia's policies won't allow the page about a free award wining platform used by millions of people to collaborate better, fine, I accept it - I'll be deeply disappointed and thinking that this policies may be preventing Wikipedia from doing some more good to the world, but I accept it. What I cannot accept is for our community to be branded as "a clear spam campaign". If you think that the article should be improved, please let our community know what to fix, but I honestly believe it would be a mistake to deleting it. Gabriel engel (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because open source software with paid services is becoming a major business model (see Red Hat for probably the most prolific of these). Your website suggests this is also your business model. It's a fine business model, but to suggest that promoting a free product that you make money off of by providing services towards is not a type of spam is a bit disingenuous. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am being disingenuous. The platform has the most permissive license, MIT, and no enterprise version or paid only features. We only make money from providing custom development and support. All the governments, universities, NGOs, and other institutions mentioned above that are benefiting from the project have paid absolutely nothing to us.Gabriel engel (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am confused. I looked at the references from related articles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appium I honestly cannot understand how their references meet the guides and ours doesn't. As you can see on the article's history, it was considered for deletion but "declining because of changed circumstances since 2013: "Appium win in 2014 the Bossie award of InfoWord about the best open source desktop and mobile software". Repost to AfD to challenge notability again." Isn't this double standards? Both projects have won the same awards, but in our case this is not considered as important. Gabriel engel (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it is worth mentioning that The Linux Foundation is using the Rocket.Chat platform as the community collaboration tool for the Hyperledger Project: https://www.hyperledger.org/community Gabriel engel (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in Wired, InfoWorld, Opensource.com, VentureBeat taken together are sufficient for software to meet WP:GNG IMO. --Tóraí (talk) 11:25, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Summoned by Gabriel engel via my talk page. As Tóraí noted, the platform is covered in multiple reliable sources: Venture Beat, Wired, Volume Labs, Steemit, Tech Republic, and PC-Tablet. The sources actually detail the subject, its not just a passing mention. Also, the subject has won two awards. Meatsgains (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, as I said on my talk page, we need to give caution to Gabriel's COI i.e. "Our project is...", "...and ours doesn't", "...benefiting from the project have paid absolutely nothing to us" (bold emphasis done by me to highlight pronouns). Meatsgains (talk) 13:47, 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) 01:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unremarkable software; sources are weak and awards are not significant and well known. The content is advertorially toned and belongs on the project's web page, not here. See for example:

"In an interview with Open Source Delivers, founder Gabriel Engel said: “[…] above all, it’s the collective effort of the community, pushing the project forward. It’s really unbelievable at times to see that kind of dedication and how far we’ve come.”

I assume this is the same Gabriel Engel who has commented at this AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reviewing the sources again, I stand by my original opinion that the coverage does not meet what we are looking for under WP:ORGDEPTH. Most of the sources are simply inclusions of the company in a list, and as K.e.coffman has pointed out, the awards are not significant awards. That combined with the WP:PROMO nature of the article, means that we should delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show that it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 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 keep. Rlendog (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Arapović[edit]

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

The league he plays in does not grant default notability. The sources are not substantial enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - his team played in Euroleague competition last year which is expressly named in WP:NBASKETBALL. The player was also on Croatia's Olympic team last year (so he also meets WP:NOLYMPICS). Article does need sources, but the subject is notable and meets the sport-specific guideline. Here are his Euroleague statistics as proof that he has played at this level of competition. Rikster2 (talk) 23:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:17, 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) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this really need additional discussion? The nominator's position that the player does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL is not correct (link to Euroleague stats above), and as noted he also meets WP:NOLYMPICS. I'm not sure what further discussion is required. Rikster2 (talk) 15:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Rikster. p b p 14:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as he plays internationally and his league is fully professional. The article must be improved, but he is a notable player. Asturkian (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOLYMPICS should be sufficient by itself. GregorB (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion discussion guidelines states in oldid=765333697,

If the reasons given in the deletion nomination are later addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin. If the nominator fails to do it when you think it should have been done (people can be busy, so assume good faith on this point), leave a note on the nominator's talk page to draw their attention.

Unscintillating (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:NOLYMPICS. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Passes WP:NOLYMPICS. Can we close this, please? Smartyllama (talk) 14:51, 23 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) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Araki[edit]

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

The one listed competition, winning the Tahiti International, does not seem to meet the notability requirements for badminton players as I read them. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep This player meet #3 WP:NBADMINTON. She placed 1st in Tahiti and 3rd in Belgia. She also won bronze in Asia & World Junior mixed team championships. Stvbastian (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NBADMINTON. Hmlarson (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with Stvbastian that this player meets criterion #3 WP:NBADMINTON. The example there, the Slovak International, is actually a lower-ranked tournament than the Tahiti International. --Donaldinyongin (talk) 03:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability guidelines have been met. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBADMINTON.Coolabahapple (talk) 04:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG and WP:NBADMINTON.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:15, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Therry Aquino[edit]

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

As far as I can tell he does not meet the notability requirements for badminton players. The competition he was runner up at was not part of the BWF super series. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep This player meet #3 WP:NBADMINTON. 2nd in men's doubles, 1st in mixed team at the Caribbean Badminton Championships (Carebaco), 3rd in Santo Domingo Open. Stvbastian (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Stvbastian. His results make him meet NBADMINTON. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 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) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Antoniadou[edit]

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

Antoniadou is a college basketball player without enough coverage to justify having an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As far as I can tell there is quite sufficient for notability, quite sufficient NEXISTs. Looks like material for an improved article. If anything perhaps TOOSOON but I do not think so this time. Aoziwe (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Has had success at international representative level. Aoziwe (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Rikster2 (talk) 20:32, 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) 01:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I'm not seeing multiple sources of significant coverage, particularly from independent sources. Nothing in WP:NBASKETBALL presumes notability from playing in the WNBL or being a member of a national team. Incidentally, she's only played on an under-18 team, not even a senior team. But again, notability not presumed by being on a national basketball teams. WP:NOLYMPICS not met.—Bagumba (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete representing at WNBL is not sufficient. And her highest international level is under 18s. LibStar (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 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) 19:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berk Akın[edit]

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

The league he plays in is not on the list of those granting default notability, and the sources are not substantial enough to pass the General Notability Guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: NN amateur hockey player with ephemeral career in the Turkish minor leagues. No evidence he meets the GNG, no prospect of getting notable, and no iteration of WP:NHOCKEY under which the subject doesn't fail miserably. Ravenswing 07:46, 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. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Teeters[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTRACK and GNG. Subject competed in an Olympic trial, not an actual event.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - My mistake, the lack of coverage didn't help, but I am still in the wrong. This can be closed.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Teeters was 6th best in the world in 2015 in 60 meter dash (see IAAF best indoor 60m athletes). 60m is an event in the IAAF world indoor championships, so doesn't this mean he passes WP:NTRACK? Jrheller1 (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom has misspoken. As Jrheller notes, the 60 metres is an IAAF World Indoor Championships event. So being ranked in the top 6 in the world on the annual list clearly passes WP:NTRACK #8. The current champion is Trayvon Bromell, who Teeters ran against in the same collegiate conference many times. I believe (based on so far, unreliable blog sources, so I haven't added it to the article) Teeters holds victories over the world champion Bromell and over triple Olympic medalist Andre De Grasse. As you know NTRACK is based on the presumption of meeting WP:GNG. Google his name and you will find pages of coverage, a lot of it related to his being "the fastest white American of all time." Because of the racial component, I added that to the article as a quote. So even beyond the specific of NTRACK, he clearly also meets GNG. Trackinfo (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Teeters also passes NTRACK criterion #9, and he does so by quite a margin and in an event (the men's 100 meters) where you'd expect better-than-average media coverage. I'm not entirely happy with the sources I can find online, but there's still articles like this, this and this. Sideways713 (talk) 18:01, 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 06:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is Strange[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Self-published book with some notice in the blogosphere, but no reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't really find any coverage in places that Wikipedia would consider reliable. Cultured Vultures initially looked like it might pass the difficult RS test on Wikipedia, however a look quickly showed that they accept sponsored posts (one of the quickest ways to make a site unreliable), their site featured no true information about their editorial process, and it also had a lot of broken html. I wish the author well, but this just doesn't pass NBOOK at this point in time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guideline for books applies, but I have found no sources that suggest this work is notable. Author currently has no individual article. Delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 04:32, 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 speedy delete (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 08:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HelmsBriscoe[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lack of in-depth independent coverage. All reference in the article primary type listings, with the exception of the Phoenix Business Journal which lists this company as #1 Meeting Planner in Phoenix. A local business award like that is hardly notable for purpose of WP notability. MB 01:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- advertorially toned article on an unremarkable business. The coverage is routine, and the awards are PR-drived and / or insignificant. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:16, 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) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twana Amin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

subject fails WP:AUTHOR and basically the community's notability guideline. The article creator should also note that Wikipedia is not for advertising. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 11:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 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) 05:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joanna Haartti[edit]

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

The article currently does not establish notability of the actress. JDDJS (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question @JDDJS: Do the changes in the article that document that Haartti has appeared as the lead in plays at renowned Finnish theatres & festivals, a TV series, & an Oscar nominated short film now establish her notability?

Keep Notability can be established by importing references & expanding article by translation from fi:Joanna Haartti. Peaceray (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article needs improvement, but with non-English sources, it is a little rougher haul. Appears to meet at least a basic indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 11:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as we actually base these articles and subjects by WP:ENTERTAINER because it's best applicable and she's not satisfying it, not because of the mere number of works, but because of their significance, none of them inherit notability and the article shows nothing else to confirm a significant career; we improve and ultimately show improvements when they're conceivable but they're not in this case, and even English or not, shows she's not had any major works. To search for sources, I went here and found nothing but mere announcements and mentions, none of which help; next, FinnishWikipedia is far different from our standards and, like several others, articles have been unchanged there for years, so because this is the EnglishWikipedia, we base our things ourselves. The article's current sources are only simple listings. SwisterTwister talk 05:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question / Comment @SwisterTwister: Although I agree that en.Wikipedia has its own standards, I would also like to note that there are two other language versions of the article, pl:Joanna Haartti & es:Joanna Haartti, even though they are of lesser quality than the current English version of the article. Have you revisited the article? While it is still what I would consider a stub, I have fleshed it out a bit & added a source for every statement. Merely being a stub is not a criteria for deletion. I believe that appearing as the lead in plays at renowned Finnish theatres & festivals, a TV series, & an Oscar nominated short film together make Haartti notable. Peaceray (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is possible for subjects to meet WP:GNG while not meeting the subject-specific/secondary notability guideline at WP:ENTERTAINER. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added about a dozen citations plus additional text. Besides appearing as the lead in an Oscar-nominated short, Haartti was on MTV's Putous (Comedy Combat) & the lead in a Finish play based on Billy Tipton's life. She seems to be a versatile actress; it's hard to tell if she is a big fish in a small pond because I don't do well with Finnish, but it certainly seems that she is notable in Finland. Peaceray (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article and sources do not establish establish notability per guidelines. Fails WP:NACTOR basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article has been "reference bombed" with a lot of sources that do not meet this requirement. Most are short mentions of the subject with nothing of substance. CBS527^Talk 04:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question / Comment - @Cbs527:: In the statement that "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" there are three criteria. While allowing that "significant coverage" is debatable, which of the thirteen references fail the "reliable sources" & "independent of the subject" tests? I did the "reference bombing" as you call it, & the point was to ensure that each & every statement in the article is supported by a reference. I would like to determine why you doubt their reliability & independence. In addition there is at least one tertiary source, Elonet, which is Finnish National Audiovisual Archive, which I believe that all the editors in this discussion should have no problem accepting as a reliable & independent source.

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria states that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers states "1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Joanna Haartti has:

Appeared as the lead role in an Oscar nominated short live film
Has appeared in two TV series, one a comic reality show, the as the lead in a dramatic series
Has appeared in the lead in several plays, most significantly IMHO, as Billy Tipton in Soita minulle Billy [Call me Billy]
I also would argue that she brings a certain LGBT cachet to her field as a highly visible lesbian who has played a transgender role.

WP:BASIC states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." There is certainly a number of multiple independent sources (again 13 different citations). The question then becomes how many sources are required when discussion of a person is brief in most of the sources & yet that person has appeared as the lead in plays at renowned Finnish theatres & festivals, a TV series, & an Oscar nominated short film?

Peaceray (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above Comment @Peaceray:

The sources may be sufficient support a statement in the article but establishing notability is a higher standard.

I was referring that for the purpose of establishing notability, WP:GNG requires a topic to meet all three requirements of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In this case, the significant coverage criteria. None of the sources seem to meet that requirement. As Finnish is not my native language, I have no knowledge if the sources are reliable or not. For the purposes of this discussion I am assume that they are reliable. I respectfully disagree that the sources meet WP:BASIC as most are not secondary sources (ie:database listings) or are trivial mentions.

Current sources in article:

1. Subject's listing in Actor Association of Finland

2. Subject's listing in Finnish movie database

3. Listing for performance of play "Call me Billy " at Theatre Jurkka

4. Another listing for performance of play "Call me Billy " at Theatre Jurkka

5. Subject isn't mentioned in article at all

6. Mention in "Finnish MTV" that actress was seen on the red carpet at the Oscar award ceremonies noting she was in a nominated film.

7. Mention that subject was in season2 of Finnish MTV Waterfall.

8. TV listing for Ghost Author

9. Brief mention as current partner of Minna Haapkylä.

10. Article about relationship with Minna Haapkylä

11. Article about Minna Haapkylä -several mentions as her partner.

12. Same source as #2

13. Listing in Finnish Film site

1,2, 12 and 13 are simple listings in actor/movie databases. Coverage insufficient to fully establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES.
3, 4 and 8 are listing for showings time of film or play. Coverage insufficient to fully establish notability per WP:NFSOURCES.
6 and 7 are trivial mentions. Coverage insufficientt to fully establish notability per WP:GNG.
9, 10, 11 have to do with relationship with Minna Haapkylä. WP:NOTINHERITED.

Note: appearing in an Oscar nominated short in itself does not establish notability nor being a lesbian actress per WP:NOTINHERITED. CBS527^Talk 19:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peaceray - Thanks for merging above reference #12 into #2. I agree that replacing #8 above with the Elokuvauutis source does provide more information but it still is a TV listing announcement. I have tried to find some sources, both in Finnish and English, that the "Haamukirjoittaja-sarjassa" was a notable TV series but so far I have been unable to. The fi.wikipedia article doesn't have any better sources either. CBS527^Talk 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: She is at least three films (or peformances) we have articles for: Do I Have to Take Care of Everything? A Man's Work (film) and The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki and she is on IMDB [31]. Therefore she meets the first requirement of WP:NACTORS. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside the issue that neither Wikipedia nor IMDb are valid sources for establishing notability, her roles in A Man's Work (film) and The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki are rather minor roles and thus don't qualify for WP:NACTOR, Crit.#1. CBS527^Talk 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a Wikipedia article about a film doesn't her notable. However, the prerequisite for a article on a film is that it is notable (WP:NFILM). Hence, if there is a Wikipedia article on the film, that film has met notability standards. If not, the article on the film should be deleted, right? Therefore, all three films are notable per Wikipedia standards. What that leaves is the question of whether she had a significant role in multiple films.

Of the three films I listed, Do I Have to Take Care of Everything? ~~she~~which won an academy award for best short film, in which she is the lead. In the other two she is listed respectively 7th and 9th on the IMDB pages of the other two films, both significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) (corrected 19:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Neither Wikipedia (see WP:WPNOTRS) nor IMDb (see WP:RS/IMDB and WP:USERG) are acceptable sources for establishing notability. 100's of articles are added to Wikipedia every day and a number of them do not meet the criteria of notability. That is why we have AFD discussions.

Haartti did have the lead in Do I Have to Take Care of Everything? but it certainly did not win an academy award. Her roles in A Man's Work (film) (an unnamed women) and The Happiest Day in the Life of Olli Mäki are both minor roles with very little screen time or importance to the plot. That's not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR. CBS527^Talk 18:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the typo, which I have corrected here. I did look up the Finnish translation of "Nuori nainen 2" and that does mean second woman, which I agree does not sound like a big role, but still ranks high on the list. What WP:RS evidence do you have that she had very little screen time in either of the second two films?

If you contend that any of the three films is not notable, then why not submit them to WP:AfD? I see no point in arguing over the notability of each and every film here and then a second time at WP:AfD. Until then, I am presuming that the WP:RS that continues to justify their existence is sufficient--especially since we are looking at them right now.

I invited more comment from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Assessment. Hopefully one or more new editors will arrive who have expertise in film and make an appropriate judgment. I really don't see why so much text has to be used on this WP:AfD when she was a lead in a film that won an academy award. You are the only one who seems to be invested in deleting it. The others who sought to delete do not appear to have considered the academy award winning film or these other roles. I really don't see the harm in keeping it when it is that close. Seems to me we should err on the side of inclusion. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, please read WP:WPNOTRS, WP:RS/IMDB and WP:USERG. What is contained in other Wikipedia articles or what is in IMDb is irrelevant to the discussion. Simply put, they are not reliable sources as there is no editorial oversight.
You have noted that she was in an academy award winning film. I'll assume good faith on your part, but you are mistaken, she has never been in any film that has won an Academy Award.
Additionally, your suggestion that I "seems to be invested in deleting it" is off base. I am "invested" in having verifiable articles and I do not believe this article meets the policies and guidelines concerning notability for the reasons I have stated above. CBS527^Talk 16:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CBS527^Talk 16:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - This is a tough one. Without understanding the significance of most of the stage roles she had at the Finnish National Theatre, it is difficult to ascertain her notability. The fact that they are not listed as leading roles (unlike the role she had at Theatre Jurka - but what level of theater is that?), makes me believe that they are supporting roles. But again how significant. Neither this article or the article in the Finnish WP has sourcing for her stage work. If someone can find sourcing to show that these stage performances were significant roles, than I'd be more than willing to switch my !vote. Right now, the film work surely does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:29, 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Denny Schlegel[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no where near enough coverage to justify inclusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google news hits and Google itself returns no independent sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced BLP. Bishonen | talk 16:57, 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. The keep !vote makes no demonstration of how WP:NHOCKEY is satisfied. Kurykh (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 World Junior Ball Hockey Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Edition of the Ball Hockey World Championship, the notable event. 178.94.167.93 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- 178.94.167.93 Please explain how this meets WP:NHOCKEY. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete (Delete on condition that I do not receive an argument justifying why this meets WP:NHOCKEY within a few days). I do not believe this meets WP:NHOCKEY. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:55, 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 keep. Mifter (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Principle[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This movie had a brief flurry of media attention in 2014 when its trailer was released and several people who participated reacted negatively and publicly; after that more or less nothing; the few reviews in mainstream media mainly followed up on the prior controversy driven by the trailer. It does not have enduring notability as required by N. I had boldly merged it to Robert_Sungenis#Geocentrism and redirected, but the article was restored here. There is no reason for this article to exist, as all that is needed (and that it deserves per N) is at Sungenis article. Jytdog (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC) (add Jytdog (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Speedy keep Obvious revenge nomination after merge against consensus was reverted. Joefromrandb (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

obviously in my judgement the article should not exist, and this is the way to determine how the community views the issue now, in 2017. Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was unanimously kept at its previous AfD (which was initiated by its creator after he didn't like the edits other users were making to it). Notability is not temporary. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon that some rush of press over X appears later to be just 15 minutes of fame and indeed most of the sources about this movie are actually about angry participants, not about the movie per se. In my view it does not meet N; we'll see what the community says. Jytdog (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should go without saying, but lest any Wikilawyer accuse me of not making a policy-based rationale, the subject clearly meets WP:GNG, as multiple editors previously noted. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (keep merged). The brief attention makes for minimal notability for the controversy, not the movie. This coupled with a barely notable article that survived deletion as no consensus add up to a scant one article worth of material. If the movie had been edge on notable and the person was known for one thing, it would be one article, no question. I see no compelling reason that there should be two articles because the situation is reversed. BiologicalMe (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then if anything, Sungenis' article should be merged into the movie, not the reverse. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that they are both marginal. Sungenis is a bit moreso due to his previous work on geocentrism (two newspaper articles about that), antisemistism, apologetics, etc. Jytdog (talk) 04:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The broader subject is the person. The movie is one brief episode. Merging the movie is the correct direction. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Sungenis article barely survived AfD as "no consensus" (IMO, "no consensus" BLP AfD's should default to "delete", but that's an argument for another day), while the film AfD was unanimously kept (and appears to be cruising to another "keep"). The "broader subject" is irrelevant. There is no consensus as to whether or not Sungenis is notable, but there's clear consensus that the film is. Thus, if any merger is necessary (and it may very well not be), it's obvious that the bio would be merged into the film's article. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG easily enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Easily passes GNG. NPalgan2 (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ambivalent Primary source coverage spans no more than a week, though I notice that the film has now received some post-release coverage (Variety, LA Times). I'm not convinced this couldn't just be covered at Sungenis' article, but I don't care all that much either way. @Joefromrandb: I didn't nominate the article the first time around because I "didn't like the edits other users were making", I nominated it because it was looking like this film had no lasting notability; the source coverage was limited to controversy (not information about the film's actual contents), and lasted no longer than one week. When I wrote the article I noted that "I'm happy to AfD and/or merge this around if no more coverage comes up in the coming months". Sam Walton (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly confused. Do you mean something like primary source coverage but not Primary source coverage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The film review in the LATimes in 2015 is enough to establish notability (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in itself, no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep I think it received a fair amount of coverage, but I am open to being convinced it was all not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And guess what, [32] source from 2015. So no it did not only receive coverage in 2014.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep, there were a couple of reviews after it was released; the earlier flurry was driven by reactions to the trailer. the couple of subsequent reviews were mostly follow ups and more or less called it the propaganda for a FRINGE view that it is. should have made that clear in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So (and to be clear) there was only coverage in 2014 and 2015, in 2014 it received quite a bit of coverage, and in 2015 some reviews, which said it was fringe science? So they commented on it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NFILM appears to have been met. Notability isn't temporary. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plenty of WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced article on a minor documentary from several years ago. That it is no longer getting much press is not that unusual for film-related articles. It is no ground for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced, useful, and notable topic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:18, 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. The keep !votes aren't grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, while the delete !votes are. Kurykh (talk) 05:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Star Hotel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced article for long time. Not sure if it is really notable. I have difficulties to find "multiple independent reliable sources" which will describe the subject directly and in detail. WP:NOTTRAVEL. XXN, 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be in the news occasionally when visitors to Putin stay there. I find some hits on it. --do ncr am 20:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess. It is true that, as far as I can tell, all the many hits on it are travel guides. But there are many travel guides that have something useful to say about it; there's no shortage of sources for a decent article. It's a five-star hotel. It's apparently in a historic building, the National Congress Palace. It provided accomodations for participants in something called the 2003 EU-Russia summit, FWIW. If it was in America there would be probably be a couple magazine articles about it and it'd be in. I guess... if you're going to have articles about any hotels, you might as well include this one. Herostratus (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - quote from WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. This article reads like an entry straight from a standard hotel guide. There is nothing notable about it. By the way, there are 17 other five-star hotels in St. Petersburg, so I wouldn't be too impressed with their rating.Glendoremus (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being located next to the official residence of Vladimir Putin really doesn't confer notability. doncram, being "in the news occasionally when visitors to Putin stay there" doesn't sound like it's the hotel that'll be in the news. Mentioned in passing, more likely. Unsourced. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 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 no consensus. The last two delete !votes are especially unconvincing. Notability either exists or it doesn't; it's not confined to certain areas. Kurykh (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tal slutzker[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO for lack of available sources. - Mr X 13:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No news hits suggests no substantive coverage as required for GNG either. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Finding multiple sources, just added a long profile article from 2011.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added several articles that include details of his bio and long descriptions of his work form which a good article can be sourced, there were more similar. I did not expand the article, just added a few articles and confirmed that he is a notable artist. It is likely that his name has variant spellings; he is the son of Russian immigrant to a Hebrew-speaking country, so transliteration of the name form Hebrew or Cryillic alphabets is probably queering editors searches. Including mine, which turned up many hits in the Jerusalem Post, guessing that the other big Israeli dailies transliterated it differently.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Participating in exhibitions in Tel Aviv and Ramat Gan museums of art grant passing WP:CREATIVE. In addition to Jerusalem Post references, I've found some references in Maariv. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe shows in the Tel Aviv Museum of Art and the Ramat Gan Museum of Israeli Art are group exhibitons; I do not see how they could be considered to satisfy WP:CREATIVE's requirement for "being a major part of a significant exhibition". Very routine stuff.104.163.152.194 (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that notability, if any, is confined to Israel. The museum shows, mentioned above, are actually group shows, which is vastly different from having a solo show or being in the permanent collection. It's therefore difficult to verify the notability, and to say whether it's purely local or something more significant. The article needs significant cleanup. Google books returns little. I'm not convinced that he is a significant painter, or that this is an important article for the wiki.198.58.162.176 (talk) 06:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below to confirm that he is in the permanent collection of the national museum. But national notability in any country is not "purely local." it is national.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a paper-based information index, not a collection. See my comment below.104.163.152.194 (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete still no clear passing of the notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:*This: [33] page on the Israel Museum website confirms that he passes WP:ARTIST, 4. It not only provides a WP:RS bio (birth, education) It links to a page showing exhibitions of his work in galleries and in other major museums, including the Tel Aviv Museum of Art and the Ramat Gan Museum of Israeli Art. Page links to a page showing a number of Slutzker works in the permanent collection of the Israel Museum. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC) My error.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentE.M.Gregory, I believe the page you linked to above to prove notability is actually just an index of Israeli artists. When I click the "collections" tab, then search for his name, I get nothing. Here is the page for S-named artists in the Israel Museum's permanent collection. Eero Saarinen is at the top, and Slutzker is not on the list. The page linked to above also lists 100s of artists whose surname ends in S, meaning the collection would have perhaps 5000 different artists in it (200x26), which would be a truly massive collection. Conclusion: slutzker is not in the Israel Museum permanent colleciton. Now, if one checks the Wikipedia page for the Information Center for Israeli Art, which is the name given on the page you linked to above, it does say they have text files for over 12000 artists. Having a file folder in a museum with your name on it and paper reviews inside is not what WP:ARTIST refers to when it says the artist has their work in the collections of a major museums. The other museum shows you mention (the Tel Aviv Museum of Art and the Ramat Gan Museum of Israeli Art) above are all group shows, and not permanent collections, so they have no bearing on point four of WP:ARTIST. Also apologies for the confusion, but my router's periodic reset means my old IP of 198.58.162.176 is now: 104.163.152.194 (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, point four of WP:ARTIST does not command a solo show, but requires "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Tel Aviv Museum of Art and the Ramat Gan Museum of Israeli Art are major Israeli museums and the shows there bring the artist to a National Level of notability. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage a closer look at the museum shows that you argue would establish his notability. For example, the show "Blue-and-White Delftware" at the Tel Aviv Museum was a show of "hundreds of ancient Delft tiles, vases, plates and more—as well as works by ten Israeli ("blue-and-white") artists who "corresponded" with Delft, including Raffi Lavie and Yair Garbuz, and by artists especially commissioned to create contemporary Delft tiles." Translation: Slutzker was asked to do a plate or tile in Delftware to be exhibited as a contemporary example along with hundred of other historical examples. This is not a "significant show" by any means. It is not substantial either. A significant and substantial museum show is when you get a few rooms with your work in it, or a solo show. Museums assidously preserve evidence of substantial museum shows on their web sites. The Israeli Msueum of art "Artic 7" show is similary not significant: it is a group show of eight artists. Nothing comes up searching the show title. If these were significant shows, rather than the routine exhibitons that they are, it would be easy to find sources. Finally, I'm not sure if you noticed, but this arists is about 29-30 years old at the moment. It's rare for artists under 30 to be involved in serious and significant museum exhibitons.104.163.152.194 (talk) 02:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Note that the 2000, 2006 and 2011 articles from the Jerusalem Post are long profile/feature articles about this artist. I linked them from Proquest, which is password protected.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is paywalled, here is the opening paragraph from the 2011 article: "Tal Slutzker, barely 25 years old, has decided to stage the first full-fledged, high-profile solo exhibition of his paintings. Some would ask, "Why so soon, when the artist is still so young?" Others, however, who are familiar with this young man and aware of his resume as an artist, are demanding to know what has taken him so long. " Teh article mentions early participation in group exhibitions and, "A now notorious "one-painting exhibition" in the window of the Tova Osman Gallery in Tel Aviv, showing the enormous derriere of a nude woman in a bathtub, stopped both pedestrian and vehicular traffic in front of the gallery on Ben-Yehuda Street." And continues " And then, around 2006, Slutzker simply fell off the radar and disappeared from the local art scene. The young prodigy, after a few heady years of acclaim, decided to quietly hone his skills and develop as an artist. Little or nothing was seen by him or heard about him for the next five years or so. Until now. " The 2011 exhibition, called "Where is My Mind," was at the Bernard Gallery in Tel Aviv.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a friendly quote, but it seems like all the journalistic sources come from the Jerusalem Post. That is not ideal. if he were truly notable the sources would be available form a wide variety of publications and easy to find; they are not.104.163.152.194 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)— 104.163.152.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This comment from an WP:SPA is not accurate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an SPA by any more than you are. I've actually been editing Wikipedia for years as an IP editor. My router resets frequently, for whatever reason. If you thik the comments is inaccurate, please explain why.104.163.152.194 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is false because the article was already sourced to attilces in 3 Israeli daily papers when you asserted that "all the journalistic sources come from" a single newspaper.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A click on you IP number showed that you began editing yesterday.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are new, you may not know that you can show good faith by ~~striking out~~ the assertion you made that "all" sources already in the article come from a single newspaper. We try to be very careful here about making sure that our statements of fact are accurate. You also may not be aware that non-English sources and newspapers are legitimate sources even in this, the English-language, version of Wikipedia. Also, your comments will be taken more seriously if you sign in and get yourself a username.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources a gNews search on his name in Hebrew [34] brings up stories about him in major Israeli dailes: Haaretz, Maariv (newspaper) and Yedioth Ahronoth. The aggressive and sometimes untruthful IP edits aside, this appears to be a simple case of a good faith AFD on an under-sourced article that read as PROMO (and still needs a improvement) , presumed COI, but the subject is an artist with gallery shows, museum shows, and a good deal of substantive coverage in the national press, albeit in a very small country.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's undersourced, let's see hte sources.104.163.152.194 (talk) 17:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to them in my edit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) These are WP:RS: feature stories, profiles, and art review coverage in several major national daily papers published over the course of several years, in addition to the ones added to the page by me and by User:ArtHistorian during the course of this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EMG, let's hear from some other editors. We have made our own views very clear.104.163.152.194 (talk) 05:58, 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

M-Files[edit]

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

Article about recently released software. Almost all available sources are press release based. Fails WP:PRODUCT. - Mr X 13:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the name makes it a challenge to search for (Matlab m-files dominate some searches), I was unable to find in-depth reviews of this software. The topic then fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE notability thresholds. I don't see any good merge targets, either. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. M-files meets the first of the Wikipedia:NSOFTWARE inclusion criteria.: "A computer program can usually be presumed to be notable if it meets any one of these criteria: It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement. See following section for more information.(...)". M-files is for example included in Gartner's 2016 "Magic quadrant for enterprise content management" report https://www.gartner.com/doc/3496817/magic-quadrant-enterprise-content-management --Brutulf (talk) 16:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Nearly all the refs provided are from the company or clear PR sites. The two exceptions a Finnish language blog and a Finnish language IT magazine, both deadlinks. Blogs are not WP:RS. The IT magazine coverage cannot be assumed to be significant unless someone can provide a link or confirm they have read it. The Gartner 'magic quadrant' mentioned above has the same problem - it could be an incidental mention unless someone has $1000+ to pay to read the report to prove otherwise. With no clearcut, RS, significant coverage, there is no basis for keeping this. Also, Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional.Dialectric (talk) 04:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the inclusion criteria. The software was for instance selected as the Software Product of the Year 2015 by the Finnish Information Processing Association [35] (in Finnish) and is featured in reviews and news, for instance [36] [37] [38]. The Gartner report can be downloaded from the M-Files website for free although you need to give your contact information to do so [39]. --Jopo (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:B2B. Bishonen | talk 16:46, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given the low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raised to Life[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 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) 05:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clash-A-Rama[edit]

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

Every "source" is just the Clash of Clans website itself or a YouTube video. Which makes everything a primary/self source or synthesis in relating the happenings in a video with no third-party mentions at all. Seems to not be notable in the least except for the popularity of the game on which it is based, but that doesn't confer notability to this. If not outright deleted should be a one or two paragraph section on the Clash of Clans article. JesseRafe (talk) 14:47, 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) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourced almost entirely internally to this Youtube channel. No sign of wider notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Since Clash of Clans has a large audience its having a web series is mentioned on some gaming websites; I added one to the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, then isn't that an endorsement for this content being a section on the game's article? Notability is not inherited and this as a series has not demonstrated much notability. JesseRafe (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 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 16:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esra Bilgiç[edit]

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

Unremarkable person. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 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) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One can only find references about her relationship with Gökhan Töre. No references indicates notability.--Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 01:25, 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) 00:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, with a good doze of WP:TNT. Not suitable for inclusion at all. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a currently unreferenced BLP. There could possibly be Turkish sources, and I would not oppose inclusion if they could be found, but this should have been dealt with under WP:BLPPROD. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:56, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Greatest Hits (Mondo Rock album)[edit]

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

Non-notable, non-charting compilation. I've asked the author to provide any references which assert the notability of the album, but so far only links to online retailers and general listing sites have been added. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:53, 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) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE given low input Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stopudoviy Hit[edit]

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

Unsourced article since 2011. Searched a bit in Russian about this award, and found almost nothing reliable, no sources with which you can build an article. If wanted, merge and redirect to Hit FM (Russia). XXN, 21:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. the transliterated title is also inexact; should be Stopudovy or Stopudovyy Hit (as per WP:RUS)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Rivas (audio engineer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited from the things people work on, or the people they work with. Coverage of the individual is required. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable audio engineer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Sidorov[edit]

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

Russians have an article about another Vladimir Sidorov. Seems that this one is not notable. The entire article is based on one self-published source - the own official artist's website. Searched a bit on the Internet about this person[40] and found no evidence of notability. Even those claims about awards and prizes can't be confirmed by reliable sources, I think. XXN, 22:03, 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) 01:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It takes a great deal of fame and a major recording contract to be considered a notable accordionist. Seriously, even if we could verify the claims in the article, it would not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nope, doesn't meet GNG or MUSICBIO. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have not found sources could make this one pass WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. — Sam Sailor 04:13, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Fleisher[edit]

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

I find some sources by him or quoting comments of his, but nothing about him. He doesn't appear to meet any of the notability guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he graduated from college (I am not sure what level, bachelors or higher) just two years ago. He co-authored one statement, but there is no evidence that it is widely covered, and clearly not enough coverage of him to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see this article as passing notability guidelines and for sure WP:BLP1E seems to put the nail in the coffin. - Pmedema (talk) 02:36, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Lighter Shade Of Noir[edit]

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

Non-notable play. Searches reveal only records of school performances and no reviews or other critical or academic discussion. The first two references given in the article are to the publishers web page; the others do not mention the play itself. I could find no separate indication that the author is notable. Wham2001 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot see any basis for the play or its author being notable. Edwardx (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 06:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pagely[edit]

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

promotional article which fails WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Could only find passing mentions from relatively primary sources —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing there. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Routine, mundane PR sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment They are reviewed by PC Magazine, recommended by someone from the Young Entrepreneur Council, and a business acquisition is reported on by "The Next Web". These all seem like reliable sources to me. Jrheller1 (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily get someone to help review your product on PC Magazine. That alone isn't enough to esablish notability —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Insufficient in-depth coverage in independent RS. MB 03:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:23, 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.

[1] See in particular "Synthesis of published material that advances a position".

[1]