Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 February	22 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 delete. MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ovation Risk Planners[edit]

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

Notability not established. Fails WP:GNG, per WP:DEL6, and WP:DEL7. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 23:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article about an insurance brokerage firm. The article makes no claim to notability (so CSD A7 seems reasonable - not so sure about G11 as the text is unpromotional). My searches are indicating nothing more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pure spam. We are not a webhost for every one of the thousands of small suburban new York insurance agencies. There is no assertion, much less any evidence, of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:18, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rigmarole (Filipino band)[edit]

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

Subject is a Pinoy hip hop boy band. I'm having real trouble finding online sources. The only source on the page to Facebook. Needs to be deleted. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in fact, Speedy Delete per WP:A7. Does not meet any sort of notability criteria. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I first queried this outfit's notability back in November 2014 S a g a C i t y (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From personal experience, I known that the Filipinos love their live music, but this one is totally run of the mill. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:20, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Motiongate Dubai[edit]

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

I see this as WP:EXISTS and/or WP:TOOSOON. Googling Motiongate Dubai, I find several websites saying the theme park is open since December 2016, but besides a news article, there are no in-depth reviews I can find. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 22:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Much like Walt Disney Studios Park within Disneyland Paris, it is quite major and there has been extensive in-depth coverage and reviews, like from Arab News, The Daily Telegraph, Theme Park Insider and Saudi Gazette. [1][2][3][4] And these are just English language sources found in a few seconds of a topic in an Arabic-speaking nation. most certainly more native language sources exist and probably more in-depth. --Oakshade (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, I too found there was enough coverage per GNG. Maybe the confusion is about the nomination statement's "in-depth reviews" We don't need "reviews" necessarily. And the fact that we've one by the Independent in the UK, beyond Dubai, helps, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a tourist attraction, which pretty much makes it notable (there has to exist coverage about it, and readers want to find out about it). (We need a wp:TOURISTATTRACTION, currently a redlink).--do ncr am 23:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tourist attractions are not inherently notable. Stop inventing non existent notability criterion. If there is coverage you should show it WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:22, 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 speedy delete as unambiguously promotional. Max Semenik (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hevilift[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG, as well per WP:CIRC. Fails to cite any sources as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 22:16, 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 keep. MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bing Bang (Time to Dance)[edit]

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

This article has no sources and it isn't notable. Also, the fact that it said it was #4 on the UK Singles Chart and it became the #1 Christmas single in the UK is most likely false. Alsamrudo (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC, as per WP:DEL6/WP:DEL7. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 22:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having ranked on a national music chart (#4 on UK Singles Chart), it passes WP:NSONG. OZ OO 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Snaevar (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Snaevar (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was definitely 4th on the UK Singles chart.--Snaevar (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snaevar Can you provide a source that confirms it? Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 07:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boomer Vial: I have an source that confirms it (an newspaper one), but since OZOO allready added one (see the article) why do you need it?--Snaevar (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snaevar I was unaware that an additional source was added to the article. Apologies about the confusion. I'm still not sure if this article really passes WP:NMUSIC, though. The only one of the three stipulation it passes is the one that has this note, "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable". Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added two statements to the article, with one source each.--Snaevar (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yeah, I feel like it's somewhat important enough for its own page. The music chart thing helps. Paintspot (talk) 13:42, 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) 01:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher's children[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF, no content other than a link to wiktionary, and even that is pretty short. South Nashua (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe WP:A3 applies in this case. I've tagged it. Speedy delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not apply, please read page histories and speedy deletion criterion before nominating for speedy deletion. - GB fan 20:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did read page history. I simply misread the policy that it applies to "other than" soft redirects to sister projects. Which is no less wrong. But you're simply accusing me of the wrong kind of sloppiness. I'll remember for next time! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It sure looked like you didn't read the page history as I specifically stated in my edit summary on the page history that WP:A3 did not apply to soft redirects to sister projects. - GB fan 20:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so it's both. I'm doubly sloppy! best and thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have initially mentioned I also put an A3 tag up when I nominated for deletion here. Great minds think alike! South Nashua (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#A11. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daylfie[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT TheMagikCow (talk) 18:29, 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. Bishonen | talk 22:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Pizzle[edit]

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

The subject of this article has not been discussed in reliable sources. The Vanguard source in the article isn't a secondary source and isn't independent of the subject. An online search of the subject only brings up links to blogs and music download sites. The sources in the article do not establish the subject as a notable act. It appears that the subject has worked with notable act, but that doesn't mean he is notable to have a separate article written about him. Moreover, winning one award isn't enough to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another promotional article which fails wp:music and GNG —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:Music.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:25, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Temiscaming Titans players[edit]

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

Just WP:LISTCRUFT that nowhere meets WP:GNG or any other list criteria. This is list of never-notable, and likely never will be, players for a low-end junior ice hockey team. Definitely appears to violate WP:NOTSTATS. Yosemiter (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If individual players and/or the team are notable we can have articles on them, but we don't need a list of anyone who has ever played for the team. Not encyclopedic, not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite aside from Yosemiter's valid reasons, with which I concur, a list of nothing but redlinks violates the linkpage guidelines. Ravenswing 15:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:27, 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 Speedy deleted as blatant spam RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Experiencology[edit]

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

WP:NEO, seems to be a term coined by Stephanie Weaver for her self-help seminars. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's so blatant that it can be speedy deleted per WP:G11. I've tagged it so. We'll see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity in Nigeria in the 1920s[edit]

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

The topic may be notable, but there is actually no content in the article aside from quoting two books without any context. Whpq (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for the apostrophe fail. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper WP:COMPETENCEISREQUIRED. I dare you to read this article and not LOL. Supervoter (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is THE SUPERVOTER ™ , his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions in which he participates. Please see my userpage if you have questions. Thank you for your understanding.)[reply]

Comment Perhaps we should keep for the LOLS? This article keeps getting funnier the more you read it. Supervoter (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC) Struck comment of indef blocked user reported for socking TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - We have a section that is similar, Colonial Nigeria#Emergence of Southern Nigerian nationalism. I would support an article that delves even more into the development of Pan-Africanism, Nigerian nationalism, and ethnic nationalism in Nigeria, but this doesn't seem to be a very useful step in that direction. Rather, it is the start of a bibliography or history on ethnic nationalism in Nigeria. Such articles would probably be notable, but I think WP:TNT is ok here, given the article creator hasn't continued to develop these rough notes. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:32, 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 Speedy deleted RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Android notification icons[edit]

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

Currently, this "list" is just a single item with a broken image. At best, this image would just be duplicating the content at https://material.io/icons/, and would be a better fit at Commons than here. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this may qualify for WP:G8; I'm trying. At any rate, speedy delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fliptyce[edit]

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

The subject of this article hasn't gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject has produced songs for notable acts, but that doesn't mean he is notable. A google search only brings up press releases about him supposedly working with Dr Dre's Aftermath Entertainment. The current sources in the article doesn't establish notability. Being nominated for an award isn't enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

noinclude>View log

Delete it is obvious this article was created for promotional reasons considering the contribution history of the creator. Why am I suspecting Obari2Kay as a sock of Coal Press Nation? His poor written English is lucid enough to convince anyone he is truly a sock. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is wrong to accuse an account of being a SP of another without providing evidence (WP:CIVIL). If you suspect he is one then file SPI. Thanks . ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Contribution from me I got nothing to contribute but I got something to say.. Oluwa2Chainz I have been watching your contributions to article nominated for deletion for the pass months an I have noticed you love pointing finger easy in addition to your contribution how am I not sure you also not sock of Coal Press Nation.. Cause you know how to point finger to anyone when their article get nominated.. But I have no problem with that, I am not here to defend myself or the article, I contribute on Wikipedia when I feel like, if you have a problem shutting me out from Wikipedia keep it to yourself and yourself alone.. This is not the first time or it's not going to be the last of it kind, everytime my article get nominated you keep saying sock of Coal Press Nation but hasn't it been made clear to you or do you need to go check Coal Press Nation case log to see my account you have added maybe once or twice if am not mistaking..--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add.. Is English my language? No. It's another man's language.. I maybe 19 that doesn't make me a fool, if you have an issue with me spit out cause I know you do my present here makes you feel bad, don't be afraid to speak your mind cause am not gone report your fowl language..--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Obari2Kay: No one is trying to shut you out. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Having said that, you need to focus on writing about topics that are actually notable. I remember leaving this helpful note on your talk page. I am pretty sure you're not applying those tips I left in the note. If you were, you still wouldn't be creating lackluster articles. I recently left a comment on your talk page regarding the Situationship (Odunsi song) draft you're currently working on. How can someone (who have supposedly gone through the tips I listed on their talk page) actually get inspired to write about a non-notable song created by a non-notable subject. You have a few things in common with User:Coal Press Nation and it won't surprise me if you are connected to the sock in some way, shape, or form. Like the sock, your grammar is bad. You also focus on writing about people either failing Wikipedia's notability guideline altogether, or on the borderline. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Versace1608: A google search turns up dedicated articles from Nigeria. Not sure about the reliability of the sources. If the sources are reliable, I'd say they confer notability. Tapered (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: Please list the articles you came across. My search of the subject only brought up the same circulated story about the subject working with Dr. Dre. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: I exaggerated a bit, not intentionally. Only one dedicated article (link show), but a significant number of better than trivial mentions in other articles. If you click the "news" link at the top of this AfD, you'll find this one, and the other mentions in Nigerian media that look kosher to me. [5] Tapered (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the origins of the article, in the vernacular, this guy looks like a real player in Nigeria, to me. Tapered (talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tapered: None of the sources in the news link discussed the subject in detail. The sources in the link are about songs produced by the subject. Neither the subject or the songs he produced were discussed. The Vanguard source is the only promising source in the link. If one could inherit notability, the subject would have had enough for a separate article. The "Chop My Money" song he produced for P-Square was huge in Africa. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the reasoning of the above discussion with Versace 1608 (which I don't care to repeat or summarize), I now vote delete--insufficient notability. Tapered (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Subject article does not have reliable coverage to meets it's Notability. According to my research on Wikipedia it seems the editor who created this article is engaged in Conflict Of Interest and a Sock puppet of Coal Press Nation. All article created by this user are Dengerious weapon to Wikipedia with the influence of Ghost Writing. All article created by this user should be deleted and user should be block according to the policy of Sock Puppet.--Bob276 (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of any significant notability. Maybe just too soon in his career if there is indeed a signing to a significant record label, but not just yet. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bob276: Yo. you joined Wikipedia on 29 January 2017‎ an the first article you write Milly Kay get nominated & deleted, here you; passing judgement after you have been unable to put up an article.. in quote "According to my research on Wikipedia it seems the editor who created this article is engaged in Conflict Of Interest and a Sock puppet of Coal Press Nation".. Note:- I have this strong believe you have been on Wikipedia time with out number like "Coal Press Nation" for you to know about Conflict Of Interest then you should be "Coal Press Nation" cause to what i have seen on Coal Press Nation log contribution it seem's he/she only write about unknown people like you just did with Milly Kay..--Obari2Kay (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tapered Here is the link you where looking for [6].--Obari2Kay (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but not a reliable source Tapered (talk) 05:47, 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) Winged Blades^Godric 04:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Artemenko[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN.Article reads like a promo cum PR piece. Winged Blades^Godric 17:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As a former People's Deputy of Ukraine (a member of parliament), the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. That and the current controversy involving him can easily be verified.[7] • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Self-written PR garbage full of unverified stuff. No sources, lots of irrelevant anecdotes, uninformative and should be deleted as the subject wrote it himself. noclador (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NPOL #1 "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature". WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable politician, plenty of english language press about him out now too --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep articles for deletion is not for cleanup. Being a member of a national legislature always makes someone notable. If the article is poorly written, then edit it and improve it, the subject is without question notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. He is notable, but contents of the article must fulfill WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, particularly under WP:BLP. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly does pass WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOL as a serving member of a national legislature. Article is definitely in dire need of improvement, but that's what the maintenance queues are for. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable. Clean it up, don't delete it. Lepricavark (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:POLITICIAN. The article needs improvements, though.--Asqueladd (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW keep Member of the Ukrainian parliament so meets WP:POLITICIAN and the Trump stuff ensures ongoing coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quade Green[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOOPS; not a top-rank player, nor won an award. Currently high school player. He does not meet another criterion outside this particular claim to nobility, so fails WP:GNG. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Johnpacklambert. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 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 merge to Strathpeffer railway station. Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Highland Museum of Childhood[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG . 4 routine gnews hits in the very local ross Shire journal. It appears to not even get any decent coverage outside its shire LibStar (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While this is an interesting article the lack of obvious sources about it other than its own website combined with the lack of coverage of it other than the Ross-shire Journal mean it is very difficult to justify it being kept as it stands. It would be good however if someone with more knowledge of it could say if there are any factors which might justify its retention. Dunarc (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~List of museums in Scotland~~ Strathpeffer railway station I really wanted to say "keep" but after investigating the sources, they are all lacking in significant coverage. Most of the sources on the page are simple listings of contact and address information and the like, while the search links above produce short mentions, such as a brief article on Undiscovered Scotland, and a passing mention in academic journals such as this one in Museums and Society. Not enough to sustain independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updated merge destination per MelanieN's better target. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Strathpeffer railway station, where it is located. It is already mentioned there. --MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 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 keep. (non-admin closure)CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Christopher Davies[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BASIC TheMagikCow (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the entries in the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (already cited), the Dictionary of National Biography [8], Rees' Notable Welshmen [9], and Allibone's Critical Dictionary of English Literature [10] should be enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, more than enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of DWB. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Good references which meet WP:GNG Politekid (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Keep, certainly. This is the sort of person who comes up in local history, is well documented, and encyclopedic. No reason for the article to be here. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I cannot verify "A Critical Dictionary of English Literature", but the biography reference is good, and it also references another article (though I cannot find it). Searching Google Scholar finds plenty of his writings, and references to it in books. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone with a biography in the DNB clearly qualifies. This is a longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would not be in our best interests to delete this article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as said above entry in the ODNB (accessible with British library card number) is clear evidence of notability. DuncanHill (talk) 00:00, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Philadelphia train crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This story doesn't appear particularly notable, as it was two out-of-service trains that collided at low speed resulting in non-life-threatening injuries. Might be worth a blurb in the SEPTA article at best, but even that is questionable. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable incident. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sole source does say the operator was in critical condition, but even a death wouldn't raise this accident to notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Trivial incident which will receive WP:ROUTINE coverage and nothing more. Mackensen (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. The news article reference on which this article is based is only eight sentences total. Trivial incident. MB 05:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can be adequately covered by an entry in the relevant list of rail accidents. Mjroots (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No fatalities, the one ref is just a few sentences and I suspect there won't be a lot of in-depth refs coming along, so doesn't meet WP:GNG and probably can't. Herostratus (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SimplyTitle[edit]

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

Nothing but local notability. A WP:BEFORE search brings up little than linkedin, Facebook, review sites, and directories, all of which fail WP:NCORP. The lack of WP:EPTH and WP:PERSISTENCE of independent, third party coverage makes this a clear failure at WP:GNG. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --Domdeparis (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same concerns about notability and sources. Article creator has an undeclared WP:COI. --Drm310 (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Soy Luna cast members[edit]

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

Unnecessary duplication of the main article, does not meet WP:SIZESPLIT. We would need detailed descriptions for each character before considering a split. Quite to the contrary, we have zero character descriptions. (And it should be useful information in coherent prose, don't just copy-paste from Wikia to save the article.) I'm trying to assume good faith here, but you can't just create a separate article just get around WP:TVCAST which now says cast tables shouldn't be used in the main series articles. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the reasons outlined by nom. Further, a more proper "spin-off" would be List of Soy Luna characters, not List of Soy Luna cast members (the latter is very a non-standard article type in WP:TV). One note to the nominator – a cast-table would be allowed at a "List of [...] characters"-type article – but in the specific case of Soy Luna which has only run 1–2 seasons, a cast table makes no sense regardless... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IJBall: Yeah, I was gonna point out the title but it doesn't seem worthy of keeping anyway, so it's pointless to move it for now. And yeah, I know cast tables are allowed at character list articles, I'm just saying this article might be just an excuse to make a table. Do note that "1–2 seasons" is far longer than usual TV seasons though, as just the first season is 80 episodes, season 2 will premiere soon, and a cast member has already pretty much confirmed season 3 on social media, so assuming all seasons are 80 episodes like the first season (based on precedent with Violetta), we'll be looking at around 240 episodes in total. But we don't really need to create this article right now, especially not like this – there's the Soy Luna Wikia, and later a proper Wikipedia-worthy article with proper character descriptions (not full of trivia, of course) can be written. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:CFORK from Soy Luna. Ajf773 (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:03, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures[edit]

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

This is an indiscriminate list of events of tenuous notability. None of the people listed here seem to be notable, and the disproportionate geographical coverage is problematic in terms of article balance. Slashme (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources are dubious, slanted towards Singapore and makes no credible assertion as to why "academic pressure" suicides warrant a separate article from List of suicides. DrStrauss talk 14:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete complete WP:UNDUE towards Singapore. It's even more pointless listing non notable cases unless you're going to include reported cases from all around the world not just Asia. Also potential WP:OR unless a coroner has ruled clearly academic pressure. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Indiscriminate list relating to non-notable peoples. Sources are questionable and almost possibly violates WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, violates WP:NPOV/WP:NOR as per above, and no entries are notable. ansh 666 19:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, Unless a coroner in any of the cases mentioned on this list attributed those deaths to “academic pressures” and this can be evidenced then the assertion that the deaths had been in anyway attributed to this factor is mere hearsay. I do not believe Wikipedia is a place for hearsay or improperly referenced content or indeed lists of improperly referenced content. Furthermore, “academic pressures” is not an official cause of death, suicide is and that has many contributing factors which doctors carefully decide on for a very good reason. In the absence of any evidence based on doctors themselves stating this as a major contributing factor for large quantities of suicides it would be improper for us Wikipedia editors to state it for them. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ethical/legal issue Also, do we have consent from the appropriate person(s) to display the names of those they have post-death guardianship over on Wikipedia for their apparent suicide related death? →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Per WP:LISTN, list articles need sources per WP:Golden Rule that the subject is notable; there are probably are sufficient sources (e.g. NYT and others), but they are not deployed here. Also, as others have noted above, this is an extremely delicate topic (especially with regard to the risk - which is very real - of contagion through publicity (see Suicide#Media) and there is a huge risk of WP:BLP issues with respect to recently deceased people, as well as abuse of sources -- all of which is described above already. It might be possible to create a decent article but this is not it, and it needs WP:TNT. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be original research, no evidence that this grouping meets WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List is original research, made up (almost?) entirely of non-notable individuals/events, etc. Also, I think that the sensitivity of this issue and the inclusion of addresses (often home addresses) and direct quotes from primary source newspapers about of details seems unethical. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (~~Weak~~ Delete, but taking issue with some of the reasons for deletion above, and with a suggestion) - A basic search for sources (and glance at those included) shows that there many instances that can be verified (including from e.g. coroners). Verification is not enough, but it instantly eliminates all of the claims that this is original research. Likewise, suicide due to academic pressures is absolutely a notable subject. In the US/UK it may not stand out among other causes of suicide, but in places like South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, it's at worst an epidemic or at best a moral panic (worst/best admittedly unnecessarily loaded terms here). Either way, it's the subject of popular and scholarly articles alike. I'm not surprised that the user(s) who started the list focused on Singapore, as that's one of the places that struggles with the problem -- and being incomplete is not a reason for deletion, so I don't know why that's even coming up here. All this said, obviously I haven't jumped in with a keep !vote (and not just because the current is pushing too hard the other way). While there are a ton of sources on the subject, I'm not seeing sufficient published lists of examples to justify keeping per WP:LISTN. The sources and the best-covered examples, however, would be useful seed material in an article along the lines of academic pressures and suicide (perhaps focusing on a particular country/region). I'd encourage Jfanderson68 to explore such a project. I started to create a stub just now myself, but didn't feel like I have the time to write something that would do justice to the serious subject. If Jfanderson68 (who created this list) is interested, however, and wants help, I hope he/she will leave a message on my talk page. If this is deleted, Jfanderson68, know that an admin can always resurrect the content should the e.g. sources be useful down the road. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: Compiling a list of instances from primary sources that have not previously been listed together in reliable secondary sources is original research in my book. – Joe (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites: I understand the points you have raised and am especially grateful for you sourcing references to support the notion that academic pressures are a contributing factor towards suicide. However, with this said, I think it is important we do not lose sight over the actual topic which is suicide. This is a medical topic which I would say requires strong academic sources to support any notion made thereof in relation to it. I am not a doctor in medicine, and therefore cannot make any quality contribution with expertise in that regard. However, what I can comment on with fair certainty is that there is a moral / ethical issue with listing the names of otherwise non-noteworthy people in a list which documents their suicide on what is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. To this degree, it could be argued that the need to protect these person’s privacy is greater than the academic quality materialized from documenting their deaths. Furthermore, I agree with you that there is sufficient notability for an article about death related to academic pressures. With this said I think it would be equally important not to name non-notable private individuals, especially taking into consideration the age for some of the victims. In some countries, for example the United Kingdom, news sources and other publicly facing documenters are restrained from publishing such personal details about minor’s deaths in these circumstances. Conclusively, publishing the full names of these victims is not necessary or even prudent to gain sufficient coverage of the issue thus this list is redundant. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 21:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wiki-Coffee: "...there is a moral / ethical issue with listing the names of otherwise non-noteworthy people..." - This is a good point that I wasn't really thinking too much about. Not that it really matters, but I changed weak delete → delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Alot of unknowns, and not to mention an obvious WP:OR violation. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this list is not the best way to present the topic, neither of the reasons given by the nominator stand up to scrutiny. The list is not indiscriminate, but clearly defined as suicides attributed to academic pressure, and the topic is clearly notable in Asia (as the sourcing provided in the article demonstrates). The geographical coverage is not problematic, since the issue itself is notable in a particular geographical area. Several arguments have been made that this is original research, but these have already been shown not to stand up. WP:LISTN specifies that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable", which means the bar to pass is whether reliable sources discuss suicides attributed to academic pressure as a set. This they do, as witness M. T.Y. Lee, B. P. Wong, B. W.-Y. Chow, C. McBride-Chang, Predictors of Suicide Ideation and Depression in Hong Kong Adolescents: Perceptions of Academic and Family Climates, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 36 (2006): 82-96; Victor R. Wilborn, Delores E. Smith, Stress, self-esteem, and suicidal ideation in late adolescents, Adolescence, 40/157 (2005), 33-45; Steve Bossy, "Academic pressure and impact on Japanese students", McGill Journal of Education 35/1 (2000): 71-89; Kangmin Zeng, Gerald K. Le Tendre, "Adolescent Suicide and Academic Competition in East Asia", Comparative Education Review 42 (1998): 513-528; Sumit Bhattacharjee, Academic pressure pushes teens to suicide, say doctors, The Hindu, March 28, 2016; Prathibha Joy, Is academic pressure driving kids to suicide?, Times of India, Aug. 7, 2016; Elizabeth Cheung, Peace Chiu, Students at breaking point: Hong Kong announces emergency measures after 22 suicides since the start of the academic year, South China Morning Post, March 12, 2016; etc. Accordingly, I am inclined to think that regarding the topic as non-notable is in fact an example of WP:BIAS. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 11:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas Philopater: I do not believe that there is any argument against there being academic sources to provide support for the statement that “academic pressures can contribute towards suicide.” However, that is not the issue here, the issue here is do we need to provide a list of otherwise non-notable people by their full names to provide any knowledge to the reader about the subject – the answer is no. For you to flippantly claim bias without any reasoning is theatrical rather than prudent information to the debate.This is a list of people by full name who are believed to have committed suicide based on a contributing factor being academic pressures, it is not an article. While the notability and sources do prove, this notability might exist for an article there is no benefit of showing individual names of otherwise non-noteworthy people and in fact it could be perceived as an intrusion of privacy. Wikipedia is not generally known to be a death registry and this list is in of itself exactly that. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas Philopater: You might also want to look at WP:LISTBIO which makes clear guidance that lists of names should only contain a list of people who are proven to be notable. Death by suicide does not alone make you notable nor does death by suicide due to academic pressures. The subject might be notable but indiscriminately listing every person involved in the subject is ridiculous. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 15:21, 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 redirect to Bride of the Water God. Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunkist Family[edit]

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

Per IP editor 58.187.5.109; Hasn't gone into production yet. No confirmed cast. Full of unreliable sources like Dramabeans and Soompi (per WP:KO/RS). The page was moved without any source/reason to back it up. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 12:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The page was moved to Sunkist Family from Bride of the Water God (TV Series) without any rational. Blogs are being used to cite , plus there is no confirmed actors yet. All of these are speculations, even the air date. This should be deleted. 181.141.93.180 (talk) 12:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is rather suspicious, and should be noted that this editor, among others share the same exact interest in deletion of the article. Ever more curious is the fact that this vote for this AfD is the editor's first contribution.Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 12:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boomer Vial: I don't quite follow; why is it suspicious that the anon editor is !voting the same way as you? And, since it is an IP address, the 'suspicious first acitivity on the project' rationale cannt be used. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi The behavior between the IP addresses is similar enough to suggest it could be the same person, or the same group. I never said it was suspicious for the IP editor to vote. I said that it was suspicious how similar the edits between the IP editors was, and how the AfD vote was the IP editor's first edit on Wikipedia. The same can be said for the redirect !vote below my comment, considering it is their first edit as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 12:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is likely a wikipedia sockpuppet (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkoAyMayLobo/Archive). He/she frequently make edits on Korean dramas and actors. 2404:E800:E610:1D5:B5E6:E544:8E2E:A945 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Where did the name Sunkist Family come from? Even in Han Cinema it's still called Bride of the Water God. I'm Korean and it's still called like the manhwa in Korean articles. It should not have been moved in the first place. Just redirect it to the manhwa with reliable citations about the live adaptation. 59.16.71.25 (talk) 12:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect WP:NFF s clear enough: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that some of the IPs and who will comment here are more likely then not sock puppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AkoAyMayLobo/Archive). However I'm not adverse to redirecting the article back to the manhwa until such a time as the facts are better known.--KTo288 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; since they locate to places far afield (171.248.112.99 to Ho Chi Minh City, 58.187.5.109 to Hanoi, 46.242.12.92 to Moscow, and 180.191.146.238 to the Philipinnes) then a proxy suggests itself. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: No use deleting this article since it will be created again in the near future by fans. Just redirect it to the manhwa until at least the main cast is confirmed. 2404:E800:E610:1D5:B5E6:E544:8E2E:A945 (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: There are Korean sources stating that principal production will begin in March. Therefore, the article shouldn't be deleted. Also, I changed it to Sunkist Family because Hancinema wrote the name as such. If sources state that the drama's name remain Bride of the Water God, then someone can change it back.Xdeluna (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax title. Sunkist Family is not an upcoming TV series. Sunkist Family is an upcoming another film. -- 175.212.206.197 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sonali P. Chitre[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG with little coverage in reliable sources not tied to the subject. The bulk of the article appears to have been created by the subject which skirts the COI guideline. DHeyward (talk) 12:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- as advert/resume; individual otherwise not sufficiently notable for standalone article. Quis separabit? 19:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 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. Bishonen | talk 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

India Luxury Style Week[edit]

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

Completely promotional in nature, a problem which has not been addressed since the previous AfD, which was closed "No consensus". Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Non notable event. Coderzombie (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 18:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are these sources enough, in addition to what's already in the article? [11] [12] Spiderone 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 13:19, 21 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Prošek[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. No significant independent coverage to be found for this artist. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: I am an author of article about Jaroslav Prošek. I added the citation about him from his websites and also from Dubai International Boat show 2017 websites. DIBS is very luxury and prestigious exhibition. And I also know, that Jaroslav Prošek will have another exhibition in Timeless Gallery in Marbella, Spain. When it happend, I will add new reference about him. Please, don't delete the article. Kristýna WIKI
- Comment @Kristýna WIKI: Neither Prošek's own website nor the DIBS site are reliable sources. Prošek's site is his own writing about himself, which is considered a primary source and cannot be relied upon to provide neutral facts; and the DIBS site is a place where Prošek sells his wares, and thus also cannot be relied upon to provide neutral information. You need to provide evidence of coverage of this artist in independent media. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This artist creates very nice things but isn't notable in accordance with Wikipedia requirements, at least at the moment. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient references to establish notability. WP:TOOSOON. 104.163.152.194 (talk) 05:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 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 merge to Trauma: Life in the E.R.. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paramedics (TV series)[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Trauma: Life in the E.R.. I agree that it fails GNG, but would make for a useful section in parent page. Should probably also be differentiated from the show from Ireland of the same name. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Trauma: Life in the E.R. per AdventurousSquirrel. It is admittedly hard to search for sources due to the show's rather generic name, but I have been unable to find anything substantial about it. However, like said above, it would be fine to include the information on it in the article of the show it was a spinoff of. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trauma: Life in the E.R. . Minimally sourced, mostly OR. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 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. Agree that it is too soon. If and when this guy is found guilty, we can write this article, but at this time it is uncomfortably close to a BLP violation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Adelson[edit]

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

This person is not in any way notable outside the context of the murder, and has no proven involvement in that. I don't see any purpose in this page but to disparage or smear the subject; G10 was declined (I may have been wrong to nominate it, I don't know). Contesting the nomination, the article creator wrote on the talk-page: "Charles Adelson is a well-known figure due to his family connection with a prominent murder victim, and public police speculation about his possible involvement in the murder. A Google News search for Charles Adelson shows 43,800 results, most related to the murder case". Family connection, speculation, possible involvement – since when were those criteria for inclusion here? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The person is certainly notable enough for an entry. There are numerous neutral reliable secondary sources that discuss the individual. It is true that the overwhelming majority of sources relate to the individual's connection with a murder case---police have indicated that the individual is suspected of having conspired with other family members and hired killers to murder his brother in law. According to WP:CRIME, a suspected perpetrator is a good subject of an entry where the motivation for the crime has been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event or where the victim is a celebrity or otherwise reknown. Coverage of the murder is now in its third year and was recently the subject of an ABC News 20/20 report (http://abc.go.com/shows/2020/episode-guide/2016-09/16-091616-in-laws-&-outlaws). The murder victim was an internationally known law professor, although the degree of celebrity can be disputed. It is true that the individual has not been charged with a crime; however, the court has released sufficient documentation to show that Tallahassee police sought to charge the individual, and that the State Attorney determined not to press charges in the absence of additional evidence (the investigation is ongoing). All this is documented in the numerous neutral reliable secondary sources cited in the entry, as well as the individual's claim of innocence. Just because the notability is unflattering doesn't make it a smear or disparaging. Knowitall369 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for citing WP:CRIME, Knowitall369. What does it actually say? Here are a couple of things:

"A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". Well, that's certainly the case here: Dan Markel.
"A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured". This person (as far as I can see) is not even an alleged culprit.

Comment. A redirect to Dan Markel might be a reasonable alternative to deletion (strike based on comment below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the sources. They are very clear in stating (repeatedly) that the police view Charles Adelson as a suspect in the conspiracy to murder Dan Markel and that whether and when to indict Charles Adelson has been the subject of a dispute among members of the prosecution (police and State Attorney's office). Charles Adelson is certainly presumed innocent, and that is the way the entry is written. At the same time, the suspicion regarding his involvement is not from members of the public, but from the crime investigators, and is quite public (and notable).
The material relating to Charles Adelson can only partially be incorporated in the entry on Dan Markel--not only because the entry on Markel is already long (with a disproportionate amount of material on the murder), but also because information about Charles Adelson not related to the crime is inappropriate for the Markel entry. If you want to do the work, it would make sense to create a new page on the Dan Markel murder, and create a sub-entry there on Charles Adelson with all the relevant material on the Charles Adelson page. It doesn't seem to me worth the trouble, but if you want to do the work, go ahead. In the meantime, I would suggest you cease your attempts to delete the page on specious grounds. Knowitall369 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news. We should not have articles on people who are this loosely connected to a crime. Maybe an article on the murder, but not a seperate article on Adelson.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is about a murder he hasn't been charged with and others have been convicted of. There is snippets about the suspicions that have been levied against him but that is not enough to support an article about him. The murder does not even seem like it is one that should have an article. It looks like just routine coverage of a murder. The article on his sister, Wendi Adelson, is not any better and should also be deleted. - GB fan 11:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect per WP:PERP and WP:BLP. Such an article should only be written after a conviction has been obtained, and even then it should only be done if the crime is a notable one (far from clear here) and if the case has a sufficiently high profile to warrant a separate article for the perpetrator (definitely not true here). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above BLP and PERP arguments. We should not be including extensive discussion of mere police speculation; we are not in a hurry and we can wait to see if formal charges are filed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynthia Khalifeh[edit]

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

I could find no independent sources to prove notability. All the sources provided in the article are primary sources. This is a puff piece and probably could be deleted as an A7 or G11. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Domdeparis (talk) 10:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. All of the sources are, as per the nominator, non-independent sources. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 12:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass out notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as utterly non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 19:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regresa (Chantal Andere album)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. In most search results for "chantal andere regresa", "Regresa" does not refer to the album. f eminist 09:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. f eminist 09:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Fails to cite any sources as well. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG Delete A simple google search shows up with filler music websites on the first page. Definitely not notable. EMachine03 (talk) 12:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly delete - A mere mention in Chantal Andere biography is enough. Wikia is a good place for articles about non-notable albums, like this one. Also, Wikipedia is not a shopping catalog of albums. George Ho (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:20, 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 merge to Marilyn (given name). Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merrelyn[edit]

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

Not sure if we need this in a Wikipedia - fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY Nördic Nightfury 08:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marilyn (given name). This variant form has no independent notability. --Slashme (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; this page deals with both the forms Merrelyn and Merrilyn which is considered distinct from Marilyn. Just now, I added content to substantiate this statement. --Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Marilyn (given name). There just aren't enough Merrelyns to warrant a separate list, just for a minor spelling variation. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think complete deletion is warranted, but I think a merge and redirect might be a good idea. Thanks for that suggestion, Clarityfiend!

Hymnodist.2004 (talk) 11:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:55, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatics at the 1983 Southeast Asian Games[edit]

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

Unreferenced sports event, not likely to expand or gain sources Nördic Nightfury 08:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - possible fails CSD {{db-event}}. DrStrauss talk 09:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into 1983 Southeast Asian Games. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 10:09, 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. passes WP:GNG based on new sources presented ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tharle Village[edit]

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

Non-notable film Nördic Nightfury 08:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 09:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Nordic Nightfury and DrStrauss: Note the sources presented herein that demonstrate notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm finding some mention of this by the name Tarle and Thithi. So far not something that would show notability, but it looks like this will be a little harder to search for. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several reviews by major newspapers in India, including a little controversy over whether or not filmmakers are exploiting the Thathi actors. While it's not levied solely at Tharle Village, it's definitely named in the articles I've found. Overall it looks like it should pass NFILM. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sourcing in Indian newspapers to demonstrate notability. AusLondonder (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sufficient sourcing. Keiiri (talk) 02:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. See also WP:BEFORE and WP:EXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Hindu
Deccan Chronicle
Bangalore Mirror
The News Minute
The Times of India
The New Indian Express

Keep - Passes WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 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) 01:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DaCast[edit]

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

Promotional, emphasizing on how DaCast is the best thing out there or has the best partnerships. Its main editors seem to all be single-purpose accounts. Probably notable, however. Sabbut (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - possibly fails CSD G11 and A7. DrStrauss talk 09:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:49, 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) 01:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arran Sheppard[edit]

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

PROD removed by author without explanation. After searching for independent third party sources, I believe it fails GNG and BIO overall over primary sources. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 08:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 08:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough independent and reliable sources.Politekid (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Delete a low level non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 MPKB-BRI U-BeS F.C. season[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is an article about a team's season in the Malaysian third division, no evidence of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Teams's second season in third-tier league. Not notable under WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rustic Pathways[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on non notable program. Not important enough to be worth rewriting. The references are not primarily about he company, but rather about exotic or alternative vacations, or youth programs, and mention the company among many others. Does not meet WP:GNG without stretching the definitions of RSs for Notability very far . DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tagged it for notability etc. in the vain hope of seeing some good evidence of notability emerging. It didn't. The scheme compares itself to Outward Bound - be assured, it doesn't compare. This is just another commercial outfit providing holidays for rich kids under the umbrella of "gap year" and there is no evidence of any notability. Pure advertising. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The comment immediately above is extremely biased in tone, comparing an international student travel program as a "scheme" for "rich kids" and trivializing Gap Year travel, which is a significant and well established trend. The notability of Gap Year travel and notable programs such as Rustic Pathways and Where There Be Dragons (where Malia Obama will be spending next year), as well as programs such as Outward Bound and EF Education Tours which have approved Wikipedia pages, reflects an emerging trend in service-travel and travel-based education programs recognized by mainstream media and impacting and influencing university education and secondary education. Coverage from diverse publications from the Fiji Times to the East Bay Times to The New York Times establishes sufficient notability for Wikipedia acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benzakai (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Benzakai. It it rather unfair to consider the article for this travel company not worthy of a rewrite. Who their clientele is, and whom their business is geared towards is irrelevant. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as noticeably advert-like followed by unconvincing information and sources, none of which lend anything significant. SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Rustic Pathways offers more than 100 programs across 21 countries..."; Leadership; Philanthropy -- these are all hallmarks of a promotional article, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. This content belongs on the company web site, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources do not cover it in detail, they're just roundups of travel companies. I also find the page creator's failure to respond to a suggestion that he may need to file a disclosure statement suggestive. Blythwood (talk) 13:05, 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) 01:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Rad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. A search for major credits or awards comes up empty. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly delete - possibly fails CSD A7, definitely fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 09:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. Probably a prod. South Nashua (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rad is a 19-year-old actress/director who has not created any notable works or had significant roles in any major productions. She might become notable in the future, but is not at the present time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Good faith Google search isn't coming up with independent, reliable sources showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:31, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lal Chand Sharma[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale. Searches turned up a few trivial mentions, so he doesn't meet WP:GNG, and he doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article might be confusing to Americans, where congress is a legislature. In India it is a political party, that was routed in the elections a few years ago. The subject here ran for office but lost, which almost always means the person is non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL. Quis separabit? 19:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NPOL.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rios[edit]

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

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:BIO / WP:GNG. All the refs are, at most, mere mention of his name -- "A person named Richard Rios filed a petition", basically. No interviews or mini-bios or even a paragraph talking about him, not even in a local paper.

Beyond that, he's not actually notable. He is the Treasurer of the City of La Brea which is well below the lowest criteria of for WP:POLITICIAN. And that's it. Beyond that he's just a private citizen. Statewide Volunteer Director, Rick Perry for President is about the most notable thing. The rest -- member of volunteer team. Orange County California Republican Central Committee Member. This is just not cutting it.

Beyond that, apparently there has been some WP:BLP issues around the article, claims that its a puff piece and then someone wanting to put in some negative info, and it's at the BLP noticeboard, and its not worth the hassle: even assuming that for some reason you figure this guy is borderline, the headache is not worth it. Herostratus (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Herostratus[reply]

Delete - does not meet any notability requirements. No contest. Maineartists (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yes , I agree with this nomination. Person fails the wp:notabity tests and per Hero, someone is attempting to add negative content, it's just not worth the hassle. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this person was actually notable, then the hassle of maintaining the article would be worthwhile. But he isn't notable. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as treasurer of a city of 33,000 people, and no other plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too low to be notable. The references are passing, and often from sources that are borderline reliable at best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice. I wish I'd known this in the November 2016 election; I would have filed a petition to get his name removed from the Brea ballot; but, unless he is recalled or impeached, there's not enough there to be notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Known what? The he had a Wikipedia article? (If there's information in the article that is useful to real-life voters -- apparently there was to you -- that would be an argument to keep, I guess; fixing/preventing "I wish I'd known this" is exactly why we're here.... huh.) Herostratus (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I had known about the article, because it contains information that would have affected my vote (I live in Brea.) That doesn't mean he has sufficient notability outside of Brea to have an article here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In theory, some of the activism could get him over the bar, if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it — but the referencing here is all either primary sources or glancing mentions of his name in coverage of other things. That's not enough, and nothing here is an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because he exists — Brea isn't large enough that even its mayor would get an automatic NPOL pass on limited sources just for existing, let alone a city employee. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per all above comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:37, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Srpska Levica[edit]

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

No information to show notability. Has apparently never contested an election. DGG ( talk ) 03:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 14:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm a native speaker of Serbo-Croatian, never heard of the party (not to be confused with near-synonymous Levica Srbije [sh]), and can't find any source that noted them. Zero incoming wikilinks, apart from its founder Stefan Ćertić, also on Afd. No such user (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creation of a blocked sockpuppet. No independent sources provided and no references found in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:16, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siyavuş Sultan[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Fails Wikipedia:GNG. The biographical information are backed by no reliable source. It looks like a hoax and the information is identical to another deleted article that was created by User:Sakura sakura97 and titled "Hürrem Kadınefendi", which claimed that she was also captured during a raid by Tatars, while such invasion seems unlikely. The article probably contains original research as well. Keivan.f^Talk 03:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I doubt this is a hoax, the individual, under the name "Siyavush Haseki", can be found at royalark and in some google books snippets, as wife of Mehmed IV. If there was a reference for the biographical detail, I'd be more neutral, but I can't find anything. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source to write an article with.--Phso2 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreliable sources and content.Politekid (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 non notable RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Navpreet Singh Gosal[edit]

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

Per NATHLETE, sub-national team sportsmen generally fail notability except for professionals. Also, can find no RS for claim subject is "gonna be a billionaire". DarjeelingTea (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I don't see a credible claim of notability and I believe this can be handled speedily. I've tagged it so, anyway. 15:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Firestone[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Can't see why he is notable. Some coverage but doesn't satisfy WP:BASIC scope_creep (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman who lacks adequate coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing of note in the article, I would expect to see some achievements listed or recognition from independent sources but he appears to be a hard working businessman but not really notable. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable business person.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:38, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayşe Hanım Sultan[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Fails Wikipedia:GNG. This source also doesn't mention the name "Ayşe Hanım Sultan" among the 21 wives of Ahmed III. The biographical information are backed by no reliable source. It looks like a hoax. Keivan.f^Talk 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I find no sources as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable source to write an article with.--Phso2 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:45, 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 redirect to Scandinavian New Zealanders. Kurykh (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish New Zealanders[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swedish New Zealanders and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icelandic New Zealanders. a very small population. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Scandinavian New Zealanders – My vote in the aforementioned AfDs; the content should be used rather than deleted. Happy to help with merging the article if that is what this discussion ends in. J 947 03:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect into Scandinavian New Zealanders as per Swedish New Zealanders. Mattlore (talk) 20:48, 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) 01:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carmen Perez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable artist; no reliable coverage, no record deal with a notable label, no verified credits as a visual artist, nothing but bit parts. Awards/charts are local. Drmies (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution. References to overturn article for deletion please - Acting credits are notable, esp. currently has regular recurring role on the Robert Rodriguez TV series "Lucha Underground" - As evidenced by IMDB link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1034414/ & articles & interviews - https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/02/actress-carmen-perez-joins-lucha-underground/ Interview w/show stating Carmen Perez from "Lucha Underground" as Captain Vasquez by the Masks Mats and Mayhem Show on YouTube. Wiki LAPD Captain Vasquez on "Lucha Underground" personnel also. Please refer to that as well on Wikipedia. And much more to be found online - http://411mania.com/wrestling/various-news-lucha-underground-celebrates-army-vet-carmen-perez-release-date-for-rampage-starring-the-rock/ & http://www.wrestlingforum.com/women-wrestling/1980681-women-wrestling-social-media-pictures-thread-312.html

Music Awards are NOT local, they are international - It's internationally recognized Billboard Magazine, the largest & most reputable magazine for music charts in the world. Link to Billboard reference has been provided: http://www.billboard.com/artist/298722/carmen-perez/chart (Only Billboard can add and edit such) The Music Week UK Pop Charts are available via print but not online unless you have a magazine subscription to Music Week. Reference has been available via the Carmen Perez website, but can be deleted if this is not insufficient as a reference; understandable.

File:Carmen Perez UK Commercial Pop Charts

"Overload" #7 in Music Week's UK Commercial Pop Chart

When she signed the deal with the Dauman Music label for the charting songs "Emergency" and "Overload", Dauman Music was under the Universal/Federal Music label. Since then, Dauman Music has left Universal and is under Sony. Carmen Perez has not worked with Dauman for years but has since released music under new indie label Skywalk Productions. She is the first artist under the label and another artist is in the works for them. SO, understandable if you want to delete the Universal/Federal label and only leave Dauman music label.

As a visual artist, notable indeed are the Los Angeles Downtown Artwalk and twice at the Venice Art Crawl. With the Downtown Artwalk, it was at the Norbertellen Gallery. Please find attached evidence of Carmen Perez's name on the Downtown Artwalk website under the gallery name.

File:Carmen Perez included in the Norberellen Gallery Group Exhibition - Downtown L.A. Artwalk

Downtown Artwalk

Will edit the rest of article to agree with your guidelines. Will also change the name to Carmen Perez and delete the middle name of Gloria.

Delete a bunch of minor acting roles do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR. DrStrauss talk 11:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki,

I believe this page has been vandalized and sabotaged with requests for deletion -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmen_Perez

When links to her Billboard Charted songs were requested, they were provided. They are directly through Billboard.com website and that is information that THEY add, not anyone else, so it’s a legitimate reference. Carmen’s songs “Emergency” and “Overload” were in the same charts as J.Lo and Lady Gaga. I am not sure how these are in question. Here are some links/references again: http://www.billboard.com/artist/298722/carmen-perez/chart

“Emergency” #40 in Billboard Dance Chart - http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-club-play-songs/2009-05-16

“Overload” #40 in Billboard Dance Chart - http://www.billboard.com/charts/dance-club-play-songs/2010-03-20

https://books.google.com/books?id=EgHgDgiLzqMC&pg=RA11-PA65&lpg=RA11-PA65&dq=carmen+perez+dauman+universal&source=bl&ots=KJYahPwTYh&sig=xvtP-SGevnXVr7mdttOC3tvcFhw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL2NzYiZ_SAhUL7GMKHZGxBSE4ChDoAQgdMAI#v=onepage&q=carmen%20perez%20dauman%20universal&f=false

To add to the charted songs, when artist signed the deal with the label Dauman Music, it was under the Universal Music Group umbrella. Please see the following links from Dauman Music: http://daumanmusic.com/about/ (Talks on Universal & Carmen Perez in paragraphs)

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/dauman-music-is-dancing-with-the-stars-60117907.html

http://archive.is/JkdU

She has a song in the popular music album series “Café Del Mar – Dreams 9” titled “Pajarito. Here is a link: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/pajarito/id1161804685?i=1161804944

When someone requested deletion also regarding her acting career, she has had plenty of sizeable roles in feature films and TV series, and especially now, she has a current contract/recurring role as Captain Vasquez in the Robert Rodriguez Emmy nominated TV series “Lucha Underground” on El Rey Network.

I will provide some of the links/references here in this article for anyone who is questioning this part as well:

On “Lucha Underground”, there is the obvious link on IMDB with multiple episodes: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1034414/

On the “Lucha Underground” Wiki page (under ‘Other on-air personnel’) as LAPD Captain Vasquez, in which I can also hyper-link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lucha_Underground_personnel

Articles about Carmen Perez joining and being part of the cast: https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2016/02/actress-carmen-perez-joins-lucha-underground/

http://411mania.com/wrestling/various-news-lucha-underground-celebrates-army-vet-carmen-perez-release-date-for-rampage-starring-the-rock/

Masks Mats & Mayhem Show interviewing Carmen Perez from “Lucha Underground” (it is a YouTube link which can't be here, but please Google & review)

As a visual artist/painter, she has had art exhibitions throughout Los Angeles. I have attended some. Here I provide some valid references. Even LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum Of Arts) has her painting on their website!

LACMA video: http://www.lacma.org/video/conversation-dir-carmen-perez

Chango Coffee in Echo Park – Solo Exhibition

https://www.artslant.com/ny/events/show/120789-wonderdreams-art-exhibit-opening-by-artist-carmen-perez

RAW Artists (international organization) Exhibition at The Standard Hotel

http://www.rawartists.org/blog/2010/04/art-carmen-perez

Downtown Artwalk Los Angeles at Norbertellen Gallery

https://artwalkla.wordpress.com/2011/02/07/norbertellen-gallery-infini-couleur/

Fremont Fine Art Gallery in Pasadena, CA – Group Exhibition

http://www.mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=136737

http://www.travelingdiva.com/carmen-perezs-art-live-performance-at-group-art-exhibition-this-sunday-dec-12th-in-pasadena/

http://abelalejandre.com/2010/12/open-studio-exhibit/

M Street Coffee in Sherman Oaks, CA – Solo Exhibition

http://patch.com/california/shermanoaks/whats-happening-in-sherman-oaks-this-weekend

Venice Art Crawl at Figtree Café

Towards the bottom - http://abbotkinneyfirstfridays.com/venice-art-crawl-tonight-1-year-anniversary-get-the-scoop-here-details-venues-photos-the-map-scroll-down-below-to-get-to-the-map/

Towards middle - http://laartparty.com/index.php/all-past-events/244-pick-of-the-week-this-thursday-it-s-the-one-year-birthday-celebration-for-the-venice-art-crawl

Venice Art Crawl at Venice Breeze Suites

http://latinola.com/event.php?event=20262

The Music Week charts: http://www.musicweek.com/charts (Can’t access old charts unless you have a paid subscription, but you can get a free 2 week subscription if necessary to verify. Printed versions scanned in http://www.carmenperezmusic.com/music-charts.html).

So after all of this, I’d like to request to please stop vandalizing and attempting to delete this article and restore the page to where it was before. Valid references have been provided. It would be very much appreciated. I would like to edit the page and re-word things as needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricabaja (talk • contribs) 16:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to allow evaluation of newly included sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the response of the article creator, who demonstrated an inability to understand the importance of notability, consensus, or verifiability. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 10:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Springs Hospital[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Private hospital with no evidence of any notability. Apparently a few celebreties have been treated there but this appears to be either hearsay or information released contrary to medical ethics. Very highly advertorial in style. No refs speak to notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since the previous AfD a reference to an independent reliable source with national readership was added. The hospital does get some coverage in print: brief mention lockdown new cardiac program purchase by UHS Gab4gab (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete advertisement for the hospital. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Fair number of articles on High Beam. Notable enough per WP:GNG. Treating celebrities is part of what they do. The statement "hearsay or information released contrary to medical ethics" is an irrelevant unsupported Ad hominem attack, and near libelous. Content and style is restrained, not Wikipedia:Advertising. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I say "advertisement for hospital" I meant that it was (before i cleaned it up, in this version) almost entirely sourced from the hospital's website and of course a third of the content was "Awards and Accolades", of course sourced only from the organization's website. Per WP:PROMO Wikipedia article's are not meant to just be proxies for an organization's website. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. 2 of the sources confirm celebrities were treated there. the other sources merely confirm the hospital exists. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 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 redirect to 2014 Mr. Olympia. Kurykh (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Men's Physique Showdown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable sports competition. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2014 Mr. Olympia competition, the parent article. No independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:57, 12 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 03:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:04, 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) 02:59, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emigma (software)[edit]

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

Lots of references but which of them demonstrate the subject's notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete The bulk of the references appear to be WP:PRIMARY, and none establishes the subject's notability. Layzner (Talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the references by Cheng, Duckworth and Heck demonstrate notability since the entire article deals with analysis of the topic's capabilities in each case. The first two reference I mentioned may appear to be WP:PRIMARY because they link to the software's website but they are not. The link for the third reference is to an excerpt. Payment is required to read the full article. CagedEye (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Apologies; I didn't examine all the sources from the seemingly-primary website in detail. Layzner (Talk) 20:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Cheng reference looks to be independent and has substantial content. It shows notability. The page does look a bit like a software release page rather than an encyclopedia entry though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 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) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. In addition to what's been mentioned above for sources citing the software, I see other such mentions when I do a quick literature search for the software. That's all I can find though, just sources saying some iteration of, "We used EMIGMA for our analysis." with sometimes a very brief synopsis of why. If there were fewer articles saying that, I would be in the delete camp, but there's just enough to warrant a stub in terms of notability echoing Graeme Bartlett's comment on software page vs encyclopedia page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greg F. Gifune[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:AUTHOR. All his books listed in the article are redlinks. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability (ie. not self-published and not published by a book seller). No mention here of his International Horror Guild Award nomination. Received one nomination for a Bram Stoker Award. Appears non-notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long list of published books, some newspaper coverage. I added a couple of sources, tweaked the text to what I sourced, and tagged it for sourcing. Wish we had more editors improving these old articles. (I also wish for world peace and an end to global warming. Wishing is cheap. Improving articles takes work.).E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 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) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak sources.Politekid (talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Keep Appears to meet WP:AUTHOR. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:23, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industriales en Balanceo[edit]

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

Appears to not be notable per WP:GNG. Looks to me like an advertisement written five years ago and not discovered. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:02, 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) 02:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a company, sourced to primary sources and directory listings. I see no evidence that this is more than a run-of-the-mill company going about its business: fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. (I have left the Industriales_en_Balanceo#Products section in place for the AfD, but it is so promotional as to merit deletion if this article did survive.) AllyD (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional material sourced solely to non-independent sites. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 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. I will invoke WP:IAR and say WP:SOFTDELETE applies here if worthwhile sources do show up and are found sufficient. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jithani (2017 TV series)[edit]

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

No references to assert notability, one sentence article CatcherStorm ^talk 21:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this entry is one sentence long and not been updated, I think this article could go.TH1980 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not sure if this can be improved to the point where it can be kept. If it can, I'll remove my comment here. South Nashua (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: Here I found the reference for this drama series. I guess we can improve this page to make it notable. However, the major contributor to the page seems to have some connection with the subject. May be a COI issue Monfernape 18:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by عثمان خلیل (talk • contribs) [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 03:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:48, 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) 02:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cloven Hoofed[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 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) 02:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious promotion by WP:COI article creator. No sign of any notability under WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Sources either not independent or not reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Incredible Kung Fu Mission[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub article makes no credible claim of significance, fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. AfD because speedy declined. DrStrauss talk 10:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:16, 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) 02:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM, GNG. Fails to cite any sources at all. Notability not established. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 22:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, no search results in WP:RS, no chance of being notable under any standard or guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:05, 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 per substantial improvements to meet WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danish New Zealanders[edit]

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

See AfD discussion on this DrStrauss talk 11:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. searches

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

~~Week delete~~: I can't readily find a few good sources that goes into any details about Danish immigrants to New Zealand. Perhaps it could be sourced if someone would put an effort into it? Right now it looks more like a List of Danish New Zealanders which could be ok per per WP:LISTOUTCOMES pursuant to the guideline on categories, lists, and navigation templates with emphasis on WP:NOTDUP. I'm willing to change my !vote if there are editors who think we should save the article as such. — Sam Sailor 11:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC) (Struck vote, changing to keep, see below. — Sam Sailor 17:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor I have begun to add more information to the article. I believe we should keep the article since there are many Danes who have contributed to New Zealand and their history dates back to when Abel Tasman sailed to New Zealand where a man from Copenhagen was part of the crew Source. Dash9Z (talk) 06:51, 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) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added more content and together with Dash9Z's work, the article now demonstrates that GNG is met. I invite Sam Sailor to have another look, given that he has previously voiced an opinion here. Should the community not back that this article be kept, the content should be merged with Scandinavian New Zealanders (which should also have happened with the Swedish New Zealanders article – never mind), as the history of all the Scandinavians in New Zealand is heavily intertwined. Schwede 66 18:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: On Icelandic New Zealanders I was bold and redirected the article to Scandinavian New Zealanders. I agree completely with your argument (and Dash9Z's), thus I didn't need to repeat it in my support. J 947 03:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Danes have contributed to New Zealand history and society. A Danish man was part of Abel Tasman's crew during his voyage to New Zealand. A former Prime Minister of Denmark, Ditlev Gothard Monrad, emigrated to New Zealand and helped establish the New Zealand Company which brought Danish immigrants to New Zealand. The article has improved with Schwede66's and my work on it. Dash9Z (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Dash9Z and Schwede66's work on it has proven notability. As Schwede has said above a redirect and merge would be appropriate if the article is not kept. J 947 03:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the work on the article, and thanks for the ping, Dash9Z and Schwede66; it has given me an opportunity to do my homework more diligently. I have added a few sources, and I have added a Further reading section with two works that are either dedicated exclusively or partially to Danish immigration to NZ, both written by Danish historians who have individual BLPs on dawiki:
Peter Birkelund [in Danish] (1987). Dansk udvandring til Australien og New Zealand - med særlig henblik på det 20. århundrede [Danish emigration to Australia and New Zealand - with special emphasis on the 20th century] (in Danish).

Henning Bender [in Danish] (1990). Danish Emigration to New Zealand. Aalborg University (Danes Worldwide Archives). ISBN 978-87-982912-3-7.

The subject is covered in reliable sources, and WP:GNG is met. — Sam Sailor 17:46, 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. Kurykh (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian New Zealanders[edit]

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

See AfD discussion on this DrStrauss talk 11:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 11:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Neutral as per my comments here. Now that more sources have been added the article demonstrates than GNG is met. J 947 19:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J947 I have expanded the article to include some history and culture. I believe we should keep the article. Turns out there's more New Zealanders of Russian descent. Dash9Z (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability is asserted. Article basically says less than 00.1% of Kiwis have Russian heritage, and here's a list of a few of them. Essentially a mash-up of a few random facts.Glendoremus (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glendoremus I have expanded the article to include some history and culture. I believe we should keep the article. Turns out there's more New Zealanders of Russian descent. Dash9Z (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The history added is not about Russians that emigrated to or settled in it's about Russian visitors (military and cultural). That's Russia-New Zealand relations, not about Russian New Zealanders. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The text and references added are about ancillary or tangential subjects, not about the article subject. There is still only one WP:RS about Russian New Zealanders, and that is mere census information. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Roche[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician, which contains potentially valid claims of notability per WP:NMUSIC but fails to source them properly: right across the board, the referencing here is to primary sources rather than to coverage in reliable sources which are independent of her. That is, performing with the Riot Ensemble can be notable if media are writing about the performance, but is not notable if your source is the Riot Ensemble's own website about itself; recording an album can be notable if media are writing about the album, but not if your source for the album is its own sales page on an online music store; writing content for publication can be notable if media independent of her are writing their own content about her writing, but not if your source for her writing is an article she wrote; and on and so forth. There's also a definite conflict of interest here, as the article has been edited by a user named Heather Roche -- and the anonymous IPs who created or edited this article before it got mainspaced also have a possible COI as well, as neither of them have ever made a single Wikipedia edit not directly related to Roche. Plus this was directly moved from draftspace to mainspace, without ever actually being submitted for WP:AFC review, by an editor with barely 50 mainspace edits in their entire contribution history. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. - TheMagnificentist 13:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually have a comment to make here? Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 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) 02:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot why I left that commentless comment but I think it has something to do with me seeing many sources that seem reliable, I don't know if they're primary though. - TheMagnificentist 18:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Nominator's reasoning sums it up well. In reviewing the sources we have listings for recordings at music download/purchase sites, a number of performance programs which is not unusual for any performance artist, a listing for subject's Doctoral thesis, a number of primary sources from subject or recording company. Although there are quite a number of sources listed, none seem to have the substance or independence to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 14:45, 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 delete. czar 21:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Realmforge Studios[edit]

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

Non-notable video game company. The article was recently deprodded by Manwoody. Also, AdrianGamer removed a notability tag in Special:Diff/660734098, which I have restored. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Fails GNG and NCORP. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is the poor article the problem, or whether it should have one in the first place? What are your criteria here?
Here is one in-depth article about the company:
http://www.mediennetzwerk-bayern.de/8536/realmforge-mit-bayerischer-games-passion/
Company exists since 2007, all (?) of their games have articles, some of them were nominated at the two national awards (Deutscher Computerspielpreis and Deutscher Entwicklerpreis).
Manwoody (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous problems with the article. There is no indication of notability and nothing in the article suggests any reasons why the topic should have an article in the first place. In order to establish notability, the article must provide verification of the presented facts by also including references to independent third party sources to back up what the article says. The link you provided above is a pretty good link and can be used to provide verification for some of the historical facts (should anyone insert any into the article). If you can dig up any more articles that would be great. Any also insert reasons for notability - were any awards won by the company, etc. At this point in time, I'm leaning towards Delete as my searches haven't turned up enough references that establish notability. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to United States Senate elections, 2022#Wisconsin. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2022[edit]

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

This election is nearly six years away, and the only info we have is that Ron Johnson is planning retirement. Support redirecting to United States Senate elections, 2022 without deletion. MB298 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Johnson could even change his mind before then. Let's get through these five years first before even thinking about this article. Nate • (chatter) 04:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 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) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. ansh 666 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate elections, 2022#Wisconsin per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not needed until past 2020. Mélencron (talk) 22:58, 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 United States Senate elections, 2022#North Carolina. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in North Carolina, 2022[edit]

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

This election is nearly six years away, and the only info we have about it is that Richard Burr will retire. Support redirecting to United States Senate elections, 2022 without deletion. MB298 (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 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) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. ansh 666 16:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States Senate elections, 2022#North Carolina per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Not needed until past 2020. Mélencron (talk) 22:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panjalu (island)[edit]

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

This page has been unreferenced since its creation in 2006. I've made several attempts to find references for it over the years (all tied to me finding other meanings of Panjalu). I've found plenty about other meanings, but nothing to suggest that there is an island by this name. Thus, nothing to indicate notability, nothing confirming that the subject matter even exists. Was nominated for speedy deletion by someone else previously, and that was contested. I'm AFDing rather than PRODing because it's an obscure topic and the author hasn't been active for a while so I want to make sure that I haven't missed any sources and anyone who knows about this has a chance to weigh in, but I've looked and I can find nothing. HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My best guess from this [13] is that its a small island in Lengkong lake but there's no indication that the island is notable, or that this is even its name. I think this fails Wikipedia:GNG. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the very first revision does not specify what Panjalu is, other than being located in Ciamis. It is more likely that Panjalu referred to a subdistrict/kecamatan, for which there is plenty evidence, until someone decided that Panjalu should be an island. I would delete the title for being a hoax, technically speaking. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of an island with that name. HaEr48 (talk) 04:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Liot Hill[edit]

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

Fails POLOUTCOMES and GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor references.Car4tea1 (talk) 18:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as local councillor with no claim to notability. Also fails WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete members of city councils from cities with less than 15,000 people are virtually never notable. Actually I probably could say the same if it was a city with under 50,000, but clearly under 15,000.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on the municipal council of a small city is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass — a town this size has no guarantee of even getting its mayor into Wikipedia, let alone a councillor — and the article is nowhere near well sourced enough to make a claim that she passes WP:GNG anyway. In addition, this is essentially a résumé, quite possibly copied and pasted from her own self-published campaign literature, rather than an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:48, 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 Speedy deleted as a hoax RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory[edit]

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

Hoax or not, I can't find any evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that this is real. No listing at Amazon. Googling "tom and jerry" and "chocolate factory" turns up several pages at an "idea wiki" at Wikia and a homemade trailer on YouTube. There's a nearly empty listing in the TCM Movie Database, but they do accept user submissions, so that doesn't prove anything. Trivialist (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a hoax.★Trekker (talk) 07:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've come to the same conclusion. Seems like a hoax, although someone has obviously gone to a considerable effort. -- Scjessey (talk) 11:50, 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.

Hypnosis[edit]

The result was keep Drive-by WP:BADFAITH nom that has zero chance of deletion. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 01:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article clearly qualifies for reasons 6 & 7 on the deletion policy - it's a biased, poorly written piece of pseudoscientific propaganda, not fit for an unbiased encylopedia. Oldemane (talk) 01:17, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zamo[edit]

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

Possible non-notable hoax. The article make the assertion that this individual was named the "The #1 Artist To Watch In 2015" by Billboard Music" however the link provided is to an article published by "Press Release Distribution Service" further, doing a site search on Billboard comes up with nothing. A search engine search only comes up with articles that were published by a PR service. Without those two claims the article does not appear to pass WP:MUSIC, the company mentioned at the bottom of the article also does not appear to be notable. The article also mentions Back Stabber (2016 TV series) which appears to be a low-budget (under $2000) TV show but I'm also not sure that is even notable. Am I missing something here? Mifter (talk) 01:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a hoax, but a quick search on Google returns no significant results from reliable sources, and mostly just personal pages such as Twitter and Linkedin. κατάστασ η 01:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - possibly fails CSD A7, unquestionably fails WP:BIO. DrStrauss talk 09:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unknown actor and poor references.Car4tea1 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sign this person meets our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One man's "hoax" is another man's "unsustainable claims made through a press release service." Strong delete. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmos (2016 film)[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Budget of less than £50,000, the only references are a press release and a blog. My searches haven't found anything better. Huon (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it may lack sources, but the budget is certainly not a good criteria for notability. There are films with 10 times that budget which are barely notable, and films with even a lower budget which are notable. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also found no sources beyond those already in the article. Nothing there that contributes to notability. Lacking any coverage by independent RSes it Fails WP:NFILM. Gab4gab (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically an overgrown amateur film. No coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:32, 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) 01:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in the 2000s[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is a simple listing of information failing WP:DIR. It also contains unexplained stats violating WP:NOTSTATS. The article is also a WP:SYNTH as the original sources do not directly state the information presented in the article. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to nominate the following for the same reasons:

Comment: This was hashed out before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in 2012 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Senators who died in the 2010s, with no consensus. In creating these pages (and a few you missed), I was simply merging these pages with better formatting. Star Garnet (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated all the pages now. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in the 1990s. List of members of the United States Congress by year of birth and death, Template:USCongressBirthsDeaths and about fifty redirects would be technical deletions if this were successful. Star Garnet (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I nominated List of members of the United States House of Representatives who died in the 1990s. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 01:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note the existence of List_of_former_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives_(A), which could be modified to better incorporate the information in these lists. meamemg (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per meamemg. This information can be handled within the other set of lists by splitting the last column (lifespan) into years of birth and death. A bit inconvenient to have to do this 26 times, but the decade of birth or death is simply not that significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 21 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) 02:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I am opposed to moving the representatives to a one decade page as the size is too large and it was already length consistent with the senators. I also favor changing the title to "List of United States Senators by date of birth and death (xxxx)" for example as that would make it feel less stat like or indiscriminate. Each entry on each list could use a reference from the congres.gov bio guide, that would totally satisfy where all the information is gotten from as the simple age calculation is acceptable per WP:CALC. All of the other list requirements are met, these are notable people for sure and there's no quick and easy way to see when they were born or died. I find that some editors can't handle another list on here, when the information is valuable and done in good faith to add value to WP. There are countless very discriminate lists that all meet WP:DIR as does this one. This takes all readily presented information and compiles it as stated which absolutely does not meet delete standards, if it did, WP would be losing tons of articles and valuable information with such tenuous interpretation. The argument against these lists is weak at best in my opinion. RoadView (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all They're not notable for their decades of birth and death. This is a trivial way of dissecting members of Congress. – Muboshgu (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 redirect to Brandon Colby. Bishonen | talk 22:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sequencing.com[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article appears to be a promotional article about a company that has received no non-press release coverage in independent secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Independent secondary sources do exist to support Sequencing.com's inclusion as a notable company: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.97.161.50 (talk • contribs)

Chicago Tribune source is the only major independent source, and it is not about the company, but about a person who went to the founder of the company. First world med is recycling the Yahoo Finance press release, Concierge Medicine is a press release, and the subsequent story isn't independent since they are in partnership. Final source is also a press release. The Genome Web source is the only one that gives in-depth coverage,~~and it reads like a routine trade publication article when a new company is founded and sends out a press release.~~ TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Genome Web is the authoritative media outlet for genomics industry and they only cover notable industry news. Their coverage is several pages long and appears as an objective assessment of the company. The other articles appear supportive of notable company coverage although I understand your dismissiveness of First world med article. 207.97.161.50 (talk • contribs)

You only get to vote once. Please strike one of your two !votes. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Brandon Colby; WP:TOOSOON. The only good source is the genomeweb article (and it is a good source). There is one other "independent" source, by freelancer Barbara Sadick (here) that was syndicated in a bunch of Tribune Publishing papers in June 2016. There is no encyclopedic content about the company that can be generated from it (it was nice marketing work though). So for now merge, and it can grow there and be SPLIT if that ever becomes necessary. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NB - the page as I found it here was a nightmare of press releases and other SPS refs. I cleaned it up and it looks like this now. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is so easy to look at an overstuffed PROMO and just decide not to tackle it. Hats off to you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ORG. DrStrauss talk 09:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Brandon Colby for lack of Reliable, independent sources. Colby (or someone working with/for him, may be a serial creator not only of non-notable pages, but of at least one other possibly non-notable company, Existence Genetics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandon Colby. No reliable independent sources indicating standalone notability. At best, as it is now, the one line it gets at the Brandon Colby article is sufficient. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 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.