Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 23 February	25 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) 00:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Murray (politician)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable primarily as a constituency assistant to a Canadian MP, and as a non-winning candidate for a House of Commons seat in his own right. Neither of these is a claim that passes WP:NPOL -- a person does not get an article just for being a candidate in an election he didn't win, and political staffers do not get articles just for being staffers. The referencing here is a mix of primary sources and routine local coverage of the type that any candidate in any election would be expected to generate in their own local media, with no evidence shown that he clears the "more notable than the norm" bar for any reason. (And don't be fooled by the one citation to Bloomberg, either -- it's here to support the date on which Stephen Harper dropped the writ, but contains no content whatsoever about Murray, not even a glancing mention of his name.) Furthermore there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the article was created by "MurrayforPMMR" (the riding Murray ran in having been "Pitt Meadows--Maple Ridge", or "PMMR".) Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd tagged it with COI on NPP and was waiting to see if someone with more knowledge of failed candidates in the last election to see if he actually had done something notable. I'm convinced by Bearcat's analysis. The trick with Bloomberg is at least creative though. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom/Bearcat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political candidates at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN as having held no elected post at a state-wide or province-wide level or higher and also fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:28, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free Cake for Every Creature[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable band. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pretty decent coverage in Google News. Enough to meet WP:GNG, I should say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rather than delete the article, which has decent coverage as Shawn said, we should work to expand the article and better integrate it into Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you say too soon? Why not explain what needs to be done to fix the article rather than go straight to deleting it. I am more than happy to spend the time working on updating the article in any way possible. Andise1 (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, TOOSOON guidelines state "Generally speaking, the various notability criteria that guide editors in creating articles, require that the topic being considered be itself verifiable in independent secondary reliable sources." Do you see the numerous sources in the article? Do you see what those sources are about? I advise you to rethink your vote here. Andise1 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources exist within the article to confirm that the GNG is met. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I agree most sources are frivolous, but a few, such as NPR and Rolling Stone, carry enough merit to cancel those out. To meet coverage criteria in those entities indicate the subject is worthwhile, but the article itself can be improved by pruning the "coverage for coverage sake" type references and replacing them with better sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient external sources. I think it passes the test. South Nashua (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please show the references which can be used for passing GNG. If I take out the unreliable/SPS ones, I don't find anything with significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I mean there are plenty of sources in the article, more than in some other articles on Wikipedia. I know, that may not seem like something worth saying, but my point is that everything in the article is sourced, and most of it is from publications with articles on Wikipedia. I just fail to see what the purpose would be to delete the article when it can be expanded/worked on to be better included within Wikipedia. Andise1 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article as of now is WP:REFBOMBed with a bunch of unreliable or questionably reliable sources which do not help towards notability. In the Afd we look for reliable sources. What I am asking for is to show me a few reliable sources about the band. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:55, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjel Corporation[edit]

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

Simply a clearly advertised business listing, of which our non-negotiable policies make no exceptions, because all sources: 1-4 are simply published news stories about their company activiites and plans, and not consistently significant coverage to suggest actual notability, and a simple search found nothing else better, and searching next found only their own company webpages; both WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NOT state Wikipedia is not to be used as a simple business webhost, and given the history shows clear signs of this, with no avail in attempted improvements, there's no other solution. SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the article has had a WP:CHANCE for improvement since the last AfD but it did not happen, quite possibly because the subject is non-notable. Thus, delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The firm's problems have had coverage, for example in the Financial Post article on 29 April 2016 (much of which had been pasted into the article - now removed) and in subsequent discussion of the implications for practice in Canadian CCAA law ([1] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). AllyD (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to have been first built as an advertisement. There is weird information like who controls the company that would not be publicly available for a private company. Then, there were obviously problems with the company. But, the page was never updated to address initial weaknesses from the AfD. Jeff Quinn (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In fairness, the version at the close of the previous AfD had been pruned of promotional content but was re-fattened by subsequent WP:SPA and IP changes. But any substantial coverage that I can see is associated with the firm's attempts to deal with financial problems and then the circumstances around the break-up of its assets. That feels more like single-event coverage than the in-depth coverage needed for WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:32, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad to Mumbai Trains[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTTRAVEL. βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 22:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per WP:NOTTRAVEL. Ajf773 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide Spiderone 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The topic of this article is an essay-like discussion on the best way to travel between Mumbai and Ahmedabad. This is not a subject suitable for an encyclopaedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is simply not a travel guide. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unsourced and opinionated travel guide entry, not an encyclopedia article. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:35, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Featherby[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Film/tv roles have not been significant. Stage roles are not major productions. Boneymau (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the biggest claim to fame here is a bit part in Summer Heights High, but there isn't much in the way of in-depth coverage of that role or character in reliable independent sources. The other parts are either very minor parts in notable productions or notable parts in very minor productions, again with little in the way of coverage. The interview in "Femail" is substantial but the rest of the coverage here is of the "mere mention" variety. Absolutely not a reflection of her work ethic or talent, but she doesn't quite meet our notability criteria just yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - even an ongoing part on TV does not confer automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NACTOR criteria. Rogermx (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:08, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NAFA 2017[edit]

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

Non notable awards ceremony that has nothing whatsoever to do with North America. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. A search for North American Film Awards brings up a significant number of hits to another dubious awards organisation. Domdeparis (talk) 10:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the ceremony is only named after NA because the company running it operate in NA and the awards are held here. Other than that, it does seem to have received some coverage in India newspapers and film related websites that are considered RS on here. One of the difficult things with awards ceremonies is that they don't really get the type of coverage that major awards like the Oscars do, where the ceremony will get coverage that details its history and so on - most of the time we have to judge notability based on how many times its results are reported and by whom. So far it looks like this might be notable, but the reporting is fairly slim. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have independent, significant coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Substantial coverage in International Business Times and Times of India. note: I was asked by the article creator to weigh in here.. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's good to have an award ceremony for emerging market films. Why not allow it to have a place in Wikipedia. The article doesn't seem particularly promotional. Of note, it's non-scalable to list every awardee every year. The page will rapidly become unusable. Perhaps the article creator could find a briefer way of describing annual events. Jeff Quinn (talk) 03:29, 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron George (musician)[edit]

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

I don't think this person passes notability standards for musicians. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article sources are either written by the subject or non-RS user contributed content. Searching found nothing additional. Gab4gab (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a keyboardist in a non-notable band. Even if the band was notable that would not justify a stand alone article on him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and others. Citobun (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent from the subject, even after a search. - tucoxn\^talk 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:12, 3 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. Delete all. MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CFMA-FM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Another batch of low-power tourist information stations of no reliably sourceable notability (and yes, there will be more of these coming to AFD still.) WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates this class of radio station as not inherently notable, except in the rare instance that it actually passes WP:GNG. We formerly had a practice of exempting Canadian TIS stations from getting deleted on that basis, because they had to possess CRTC licenses just like any other radio station and were thus sourceable to at least some of the same types of sources that we permit in other radio station articles -- but as of 2013, the CRTC revised its policies and TIS stations are now exempt from having to have licenses at all anymore. As a result, it is no longer verifiable whether any of these stations is still operational or not: reliable media sources don't cover them and the CRTC doesn't have to issue license renewals, so we have no way to determine whether any of these is still operating, if it went defunct then when or why, or anything else about it. And if we can't verify it anymore, then we can't keep it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/Bearcat. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that any of these stations will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, much less to verify whether they are still operating (and the CFWJ-FM, CFDT-FM, and CFDK-FM articles in particular all claim, apparently without sources, that those stations are off the air — with the latter two articles even admitting that the launch dates for those two stations are unknown, further indicating the relatively-unverifiable nature of these stations' operations). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom/Bearcat. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Bearcat comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:18, 3 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. Delete and salt. MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Castilic[edit]

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

Made-up term for buildings made to look like castles which, according to the start of the article and talk page, has been made up by the author and fellow students in his high school architecture class. I'm honestly sorry to have to submit to this to AfD, since this seems like a good-faith effort to contribute an article, but I feel it fails our WP:MADEUP criteria against self-coined terms and ideas. Since the creator has contested a PROD on it and recreated it (it was speedied twice before), I'd like to seek consensus regarding its deletion. Blythwood (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator correctly points out, this neologism has never been used outside of an architecture class. Pichpich (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the odd disclaimer atop the article attests, it's admittedly non-notable. If necessary, salt. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No references whatsoever--does not begin to meet basic notability test.Glendoremus (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a real family name, but not a style. Bearian (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ushers: The Front of House Musical[edit]

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

Article about a musical consisting of a huge plot summary and promotional text. Two sources, only one of which is about the article subject and that is a promotional press release. Searches do not turn up significant, independent coverage. Coverage is heavy on blogs, social media, and promotional pieces. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user has recently added a raft of references to the article, some of which are not WP:V. After reviewing these, they are, at best, WP:ROUTINE announcements of openings and one promotional piece that reflects some of the same verbiage as this article and are not likely to be considered independent or significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete It is blatant ads by a user who keeps posting them. Kill the ads. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 14:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:MOVIE. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) or Wikipedia:Notability (films) since the musical has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 17:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nom.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Darkosadze[edit]

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

I sometimes wish that the notability guidelines here weren't so high. Doesn't appear to meet GNG; a Google News search returns 0 results. Note to creator: If you want I can help you get used to Wikipedia. J 947 20:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- good faith search turning up zero independent, reliable sources showing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The link that works is to an item that has no connection to Darkosadze.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG because of a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, even after a good faith search. - tucoxn\^talk 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:46, 3 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. MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diabolical signature[edit]

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

This article has been around the English Wikipedia for some time, just lingering, without any references at all and it doesn’t really have a claim of why it is notable other than reference to a famous story of a person who made a pact with the devil. With this said, no sources I could find referenced a “diabolical signature.” Therefore, I would say this doesn’t meet WP:GNG and as it has been un-referenced for god knows how long (get the irony?) I doubt there’s much chance of it. Perhaps someone can search more corners of the web than myself to pick something up but scholar records, google etc. don’t pick anything up of note. As it stands, with no references, and non-that I could find which assert notability I move to AfD however, if some references are found that assert notability then I will be happy to rescind nomination.

→ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete _{changed per users request here} to Deal with the Devil. From what I can tell, the information here is drawn almost entirely from a single source, which is this book. This is the only real source I could find discussing the term "diabolical signature" in the manner described in the article, and a lot of the content of this article is word-for-word copied from the text in the book. Any other mention of the term I can find are either super brief mentions, that don't go into detail at all, or are mirrors of this article. So, it does not have the amount of reliable sources needed to really exist as a separate article. However, as this article is talking entirely about making deals with demons, and the "Deal with the Devil" article covers a lot of the same material, a merge and redirect to that article seems like it would be a good option. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Actually, that book is likely copying from the article, rather than the other way around. The article is little changed from 2003 when it was created, that book was published in 2012. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is the case, then you can consider my argument to be for Deletion, rather than Merging. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The article is quite short, and it makes sense to include this information as a section in Deal with the Devil rather than as a stand-alone article. As far as sources go, (since if we are to merge it the information still needs to be sourced) page 115 of this book mentions the necessity of obtaining the Devil's signature for a spell to create untold wealth, but it doesn't go far in sourcing the sort of specifics in the article. Although they aren't cited in footnotes according to current Wikipedia standards, the article does cite to Arbatel de Magia Verum and The Lesser Key of Solomon (Solomon) for some of its claims (books that were written in Latin circa 1575-1700). From what I can tell, Solomon likely does support the assertions the article makes, though Arbatel de Magia Verum probably doesn't. I'd prefer to see more recent treatment of these old and difficult sources - these older sources don't quite meet the definition of primary sources, but I'd still prefer to see them treated as such for this article. That said, I think Solomon gives enough credibility to the contents of the article that there is content worth merging to Deal with the Devil, citing to Solomon. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ONUnicorn: My name is Solomon and I was wtfing for a while until I read more into it. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 23:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Sorry to confuse you. :) ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 23:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A rather fringe topic from demonology, "the systematic study of demons or beliefs about demons". It used to be all the rage for religious thought, but how many reliable sources address such matters nowadays? And the article seems to be quoting the Lesser Key of Solomon, a 17th-century grimoire. Among other things, the grimoire names and describes 72 different demons. Most of them are not known from previous sources, and may have been created by the anonymous writer. I doubt this counts as a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if this information is in the Lesser Key of Solomon article, it makes little sense to have a separate article. I may go to hell for this, but I think we should delete. Rogermx (talk) 20:49, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Palacios[edit]

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

Non notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a non-notable film director. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: why non-notable? I see she signed several notable movies, at least for en.wikipedia.--Pampuco (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pampuco: Which three? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, notable is maybe too much, but at least they have a wikipedia page. But I see that now there are deletion proposals for these entries. I think this is the right method, starting the deletion debate from the movies and then, if it's the case, deleting the main entry about the film maker.--Pampuco (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is my belief based on the edits that I saw on Spanish Wikipedia that the same users created all of these things together. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pampuco: For example contributions of Hertzfeld and contributions of L.palacios. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and these contributions from Lucia_Palacios and the contributions from Playloud and these contributions from Hertzfeld on German Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, those users don't look so neutral.--Pampuco (talk) 22:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by now-blocked WP:COI. No evidence that she passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't had a chance to review the WP:RS carefully enough to see whether this is worth saving. But I did look briefly at the Spanish version, which looks about the same, and there appears to be an edit by the subject. The German Version looks similar and seems like promotional activity. If this goes up for delete, is there a way to submit for deletion in all languages? --David Tornheim (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of edit histories worth considering contributions of Hertzfeld and contributions of L.palacios. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and these contributions from Lucia_Palacios and the contributions from Playloud and these contributions from Hertzfeld on German Wikipedia. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:41, 3 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. czar 03:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeflow[edit]

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

This article does have a few sources, but none of them are have a reputation for editorial control or fact checking. The first is an indiscriminate software directory. The second is a competitor's website. The third is a self published blog on an unrelated topic (ambient sounds). I've looked and I haven't found anything better available. Since this article lacks reliable sources, it does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. In your reference searches, keep in mind that there is a second program named 'Timeflow' that was created by a professor at Duke University, that's not the one we're discussing here. MrOllie (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. The article also does not pass the criteria in the essay Wikipedia:Notability (software) since this software has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. It also is not taught in multiple schools, not the subject of multiple third-party manuals, and it does not have historical significance. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. - tucoxn\^talk 17:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:48, 3 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 speedy delete. WP:A7 NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SeatMarket[edit]

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

Apparently completely non-notable company, started in August last year. Its existence, and just about nothing else, is confirmed by its Companies House listing. Not one mention on Google news, a grand total of 85 hits on Google, of which about the first dozen actually relate to this company. Neither of the two sources in the article mention the company. Nowhere near meeting the WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kill the ads (speedy delete) Does not in any way at all meet WP:GNG and is probably advertising. I would write a longer explanation however, it’s not worth the time typing. It’s clearly non-encyclopaedic content. →ὦiki-Coffee^{(talk to me!)} _{(contributions)} 12:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 06:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gauthier Bouchet[edit]

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

Gauthier Bouchet does not fill criteria of notability

Furthermore, he is a french politician, but this page is only in english (but I don't know if it is a criteria...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Trichet-Allaire (talk • contribs) 22:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Bouchet seems eligible for Wikipedia criterias as he's both an important politician in his region (local leader, elected in an important city) and an historian specialized about 19-20th French political history. He's known as the author of a thesis about the firts years of the Third Republic, different articles (Revue de centre etudes et de recherche sur le bonapartisme, etc.), and currently works about legitimist (ultra conservative monarchism) in Western France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biscailuz (talk • contribs) 03:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I launch again this procedure, which was at the time irregularly stopped by Biscailuz (talk · contribs). Kumʞum ouatizite ? 16:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Lack of significant coverage. Major press venues (Libération, Le Monde, Le Figaro) doesn't seem to have an article about the article topic. Lack of sources in the article. The currently rather long content seems to be out of scope on Wikipedia, written more for a personal site than a summary of sources available (there aren't any). --Dereckson (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On top of that:
There is a strong probability that Biscailuz (talk · contribs) is Gauthier Bouchet himself or someone close to him as, from the earliest version of the page, we can found personnal data and information which have no existence on the web (e.g. the complete name : "Gauthier Moïse André Bouchet", nothing on the web);

A strong probability of self-promotion: after been quick deleted 3 times on fr.wp, he tried there;

Some lies about the notability: the Major press articles section contain... a very, very local media which never could be used, even as a source in fr.wp and a Youtube video which is basically a primary and promotional source. Kumʞum ouatizite ? 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete., for same reason than precedent comment. I am myself elected in this city, and he is not a particularly known politician, just one of the 50 member of the city council of Saint-Nazaire (70 000 hab) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Trichet-Allaire (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite his political activities seem quite local, G. Boucher is a local historian that mainly works on history of conservatisms (monarchism and gaullism) and history of French republicanism since its beginning. His thesis is a regional study of legitimist monarchism, a continuation of previous works on local elections in Loire-Inférieure department during the Third Republic. A part of his articles can be consulted on the website that he dedicated to his historical works, the Société d'histoire politique de l'Ouest. However, it's strange to notice that this site was currently unreferenced within the sources of its Wikipedia article. --Daunou (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- — Daunou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. There's clearly quite a bit that can be said about him, enough that he'd qualify for an article if he could actually be shown to clear WP:GNG — but what this article is lacking is adequate reliable source referencing to show that he clears GNG. This article, in fact, has one of the biggest gaps I've ever seen on Wikipedia between its significant length and depth, and the negligible amount of referencing that was actually present to actually support the content. A gap like that inevitably means one of three things, however: either (a) the subject is more referenceable, and clears GNG more easily, than the article actually shows, or (b) he wrote it largely or entirely himself in defiance of WP:AUTOBIO, or (c) somebody directly contacted him to collect otherwise unsourceable personal details from a private interview (which we're also not allowed to do, because our sources have to be verifiable in published content.) Nothing here, however, is so inherently notable as to exempt him from having to be sourceable over GNG, because without adequate referencing we can't properly sort out what's verifiable as true and what's unsourceable insider information or conflict of interest puffery. So move it to draftspace, so that people have a chance to get the referencing up to snuff — if in three to six months that still hasn't happened, then it can be MFDed accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, self-promoting entry by single-purpose account. Popo le Chien ^{throw a bone} 13:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: criterias aren't reached. NAH 13:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete his political position at present is not high enough to show notability. His work as a historian is also not yet on a notable level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor political position of only local importance. Party position in minor party. No evidence of broad academic notice. Only evidence for WP:GNG is in WP:ROUTINE local organs or in media connected to subject or subject's party and hence not independent. This all adds up to not passing WP:GNG or any applicable WP:SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to gain both political position due to the French presidential campaign and an interesting audience as local historian about electoral studies. Anyway this page needs an importance clearance of his sources. They exist on the Internet when we type 'Gautier Bouchet' on Google but apparently many serious sources weren't referenced on this Wikipedia notice at this time (as his historical articles, participations on major medias as Sputnik etc.) Planetesimal (talk) (contrib) 13:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) — Planetesimal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

W Retreat & Spa Bali - Seminyak[edit]

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

Not-notable subject, WP:ARTSPAM. Citobun (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Category:Hotels and its subcategories has hundreds of entries. So the main questions are 1) do we have enough sources to build a reasonable short article on the subject, and 2) does this entity fit in well with the few-hundred hotels we do have articles on, and

As to the first, yeah, IMO there are sufficient entries in travel guides and so on to make an article. As to the second... well, it is not a five-star hotel in a major city. It doesn't host a famous urban restaurant. And as far I know famous people haven't stayed there, or important things happened there. It's just a resort in the middle of nowhere.

It has 237 rooms rooms. The Waldorf Astoria New York has 1,413 rooms. The Plaza Hotel has 282 rooms + 152 condo units. So I guess its not a huge hotel in the scheme of things. The article says they have won some awards, which might matter a tiny bit although they look to be of mostly limited interest to the general reader -- "Gold Key Awards – 2011 Best Guest Room Design" and so forth, intra-industry awards of little notability I assume -- and anyway are not sourced (except to their website).

Enh. I'm in inclusionist and I don't see what harm this article is doing. I consider the refs to travel guides (Tripadvisor.com etc. etc.) be be sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG, since they describe the entity in some detail and are not just passing mentions. Another editor might feel that since travel guides list everything they are mere directories and don't much count. The entity has won some awards. I am not personally offended by the existence of this article. Maybe should be transwikied to Wikitravel. Herostratus (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A range of sources but none of them provide significant independent coverage, rather just advertising and promotional content for the hotel. Ajf773 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with above. Nothing remarkable indicated to establish notability. Appears to be a WP:MILL hotel. MB 23:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. Harlan Wilson[edit]

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

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

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

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

Subject does not appear to meet either WP:PROF or WP:NAUTHOR. Most of the article is sourced to subject's own website (which does not always appear to support the information cited). Created by a COI account, maintained by another COI account (currently blocked for WP:PAID violations). Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Wilson is quite notable in genre fiction, having published a large number of books with well-known small presses and being recognized as one of the founders of bizarro fiction. His academic books have also been released by important academic presses such as Columbia University Press and the University of Illinois Press. Finally, he has had coverage of his fiction in place like Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, the San Francisco Book Review and many other places. All of this indicates he meets notability standards. It's also worth noting the article has been improved since this AfD began, with more info and references added. --SouthernNights (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Wilson is the author of over 20 books from major and minor presses and has over 1000 total publications. He is also a bona fide professor (see http://people.wright.edu/david.wilson). More citations are needed in this article, however, for some biographical material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:F5C1:BB00:3DEB:5D20:7A89:351C (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Block evasion, !vote struck. Yunshui ^雲 _水 16:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I was considering withdrawing this nomination, based on SouthernNights addition of sources, but on review I'm still not sure about it. The LA Review biography, which is cited multiple times, is in fact a contributor bio (meaning it was presumably written by Harlan or his publicist), and the second most-cited source is a series of interviews published on Wilson's own website. The other new sources appear to primarily be reviews of his work, which may meet NAUTHOR#4c ("has won significant critical attention"), but I'm still on the fence and would appreciate more input. Nevertheless, my thanks to SoutherNights for the expansion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Los Angeles Review of Books is a contributor's biography written by Harlan or someone associated with him. But either way the bio is a reliable source of info which provides a nice overview of the author's career. I've also gone in and added more info and references to the article, including references to a number of interviews with him. As one of the founders of bizarro fiction who has published more than 20 books, Wilson is notable. And with this notability backed up by a number of reliable sources, this article is a definite keep. --SouthernNights (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Based on the expansion that the article has undergone over the last day or two, I withdraw my nomination for deletion. Another editor has !voted to delete the page, so this AFD still needs to run its course, but please disregard the nomination when closing the discussion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:45, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Angora Breeding Farm[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG could find no in-depth independent coverage after a search. Domdeparis (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it was world's largest rabbit farm and completely cruelty free (as claimed), that could be notable. What happened, did other rabbit farms overtake it or did it decline? This is an article that could have good sources in the local language, but more difficult to research in English. Also, if its heyday was prior to the internet, online sources might not be very helpful. Jack N. Stock (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reference hillpost mentions Nagwain in Mandi district and Kandwari in Kangra district, but does not support the article's statement that the farm at Kulu "was the first farm in Asia to have a complete cruelty free environment".
The reference ICAR Central Sheep and Wool Research Institute does not mention the farm.
The reference kullu.net is the article's subject's own website and is not a reliable source.
The reference List of rabbit companies in India does not mention International Angora Breeding Farm and does not support the statement "By the mid 1970s the farm had more than 17,000 rabbits and were employing over 100 full-time employees."
It looks to me that the article is a blatant attempt to promote the company and provides untrue information. Apuldram (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The farm, as mentioned before was established a long time ago and in an area that until very recently had no access to the internet, which is why there aren't many things about the farm that can be found online. The reference kullu.net is a page from the official site of the town. Also, there is a lot of offline proof of everything mentioned on the article. Could you point me to how the offline material could be presented to support the statements in the article?Karanparmar99 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NPOV is policy, it is not mere guideline or guidance. I also strongly suspect WP:COI. If this article was rewritten from a neutral point of view on both angora rabbit farming generally and this farm specifically, I suspect it would be scathing, and @Karanparmar99: would gladly agree to delete. Furthermore, the only third party source I found that specifically mentioned this farm only used it as a negative example, it did not claim or support WP:N. Finally, the total land area of the farm could not have been more than 50 acres (20 ha), and that is a very small farm. This is the equivalent of writing an article for a 50 acre poultry farm. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found these: The Tribune, "Rabbit farming on the decline", Hill Post, "Himachal promoting sheep, Angora rabbit rearing", so a sentence or 2 could be added to Angora wool about this region's angora bunny farming, but nothing, apart from tourism listings/mentions, on this specific farm. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:47, 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 delete. czar 03:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Ingram[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per lots of WP:ROUTINE sources and likely WP:TOOSOON in the best scenario. Fails WP:NHOCKEY as he does not qualify for criteria #1, #2, and #3 by not playing professionally, #4 as he has only been a Second Team All-Star in the major junior WHL, #5 as he was drafted in the 3rd round, and #6 as he has never played for Senior national team (U20 only). Yosemiter (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet a notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. It's WPTOOSOON for this article and it fails WP:GNG because of a lack of non-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. - tucoxn\^talk 18:01, 3 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 List of people from Syracuse, New York. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable citizens of Syracuse, New York[edit]

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

Taking to AFD since PROD was removed. This is a blatant POV fork because "notable citizens" is a very subjective title and it's full of cherry-picked listings based on unclear (and probably biased) criteria. Per WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Content forking#Point of view (POV) forks, Wikipedia is supposed to have articles with neutral titles and neutral content, and this isn't at all either of those. Furthermore, contributions that people have made to Syracuse, New York can be contained on that page instead. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of people from Syracuse, New York. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With List of people from Syracuse, New York, Some text content could be added. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people from Syracuse, New York, the standard way to handle such lists. postdlf (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of people from Syracuse, New York. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Stepanenko[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:FILMMAKER. The only material I can locate in English sources are social media like Vine, UpWork, Facebook and LinkedIn. From what I could tell the Ukrainian sources are nearly as bare but I am far, far from fluent. As it stands this is an effectivly unsourced BLP. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Keep based on Russian language sources and discussion linked in my Comment below Jbh ^Talk 18:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)</s struck because Russian sources enough to pass GNG have since beeen identified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The author has added some sources see The article about Eugene Stepanenko is being considered for deletion. Why?. ~~In short there is only one in depth source about the subject and I am unsure of the quality of the site which published even that.~~ Jbh ^Talk 13:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 13:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm guessing there are a lot more sources on him in Ukrainian and Russian. If these are high level sources (national newspapers etc) then he may very well pass the notability test. At the moment it's sort of borderline.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage about the person in Russian language sources as a participant of the conflict, one of organizers of a military hospital and documentary film director [2]. For example, this,[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. I did not even check Ukrainian language sources. My very best wishes (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on references meeting WP:GNG. What is User:Johnpacklambert basis for deletion, now the nomination is withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 13:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no basis for deletion but the Russian language sorces were first pointed out in a discussion two days after my vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think my first strike though of my comment above didnot close right. I also explained that was a move to keep (althoufh since we are past withdrawal of nomination it does not matter much.) That someone got lost when I saved about a minute ago.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG based on My very best wishes's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geeta Vishwas[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Was deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or merge anything useful into Shaktimaan. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Shaktimaan per nominator and above commentator. Aoba47 (talk) 15:11, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Naf Rakkha[edit]

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

This may be a hoax. I came across it while page curating and started trying to clean it up, and while I was working through it, I began noticing that things didn't quite add up, and that I couldn't find anything about this specific battle. I couldn't even find much about Alm Fazur Rahman which didn't seem to make sense. Then I realised that much of the article is based (basically copy and pasted, so copyright violation) on a forum post from June 14 2015 here - which trumpets how it was written by "our WAR HERO - "Alm Fazlur Rahman"" and at the end of the post, someone else asks "Is it authentic? No mention of this in any other places." As soon as I saw that rather enormous red flag, bearing in mind that I couldn't up to then confirm that Operation Naf Rakkha was even a thing, I stopped trying to copy-edit and fix the article, saved my changes, and am bringing it to AFD for discussion. If it can be shown that this was an actual incident, then I am open to withdrawing my nom, but it looks/smells very fishy. Mabalu (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:- I wondered if it was real when first I edited it, but the BBC report seems genuine. ~~Whether it is notable enough for an article, is another matter.~~ - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC report doesn't actually describe a battle/military operation, just that an alleged trigger for this operation did occur, but nothing about any resulting conflicts. I couldn't actually confirm the rest of the article. Mabalu (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there was "an incident", so the entire article is not a hoax, but the scale of the incident appears minor - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - - Like everyone else, I have failed to find anything other than the BBC article - Arjayay (talk) 08:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources for this incident in English, though of course it's probable most would be in other languages. The BBC report seems to be about a different incident, as it only refers to shots being fired. I think that if hundreds of people had been killed as the article claims, the BBC might have mentioned this. Like the nom I may be persuaded to change my mind, if anyone turns up non-English reliable sources. Neiltonks (talk) 13:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any mention of the incident. Page 340 of Cheesman, Nick, and Nicholas Farrelly, eds. Conflict in Myanmar: War, Politics, Religion. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, 2016. (https://muse.jhu.edu/chapter/1853344) gives, "Table 16.1. Major conflicts along the Myanmar–Bangladesh border (1978–2014)" listing 8 conflicts, none of which resulted in more than 48 violent deaths (one saw 3 Bangladesh soldiers killed in 1991, another saw 48 dead in riots in 2014, and one saw one dead Bangladeshi border patrol corporal in 2014. The rest result in population displacement or political meetings. No mention of any event between 1992 and 2008. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if not a hoax, not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be some Bangladeshi or Pakistani nationalist's fantasy. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Casualties: Bangladesh - 0 killed; Myanmar - 600 killed? This has hoax written all over it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax to me. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether or not it's a hoax doesn't even matter, it's a clear cut copyright violation and on that grounds alone it should have been speedy deleted. MaxBrowne (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the other hand, we have confirmed that it's definitely a hoax, so it's useful to have this AfD too.... Mabalu (talk) 11:04, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TOCA Football[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are regurgitated press releases , blogs or niche publications. Nothing substantive or reliable. Author removing maintenance tags does not improve confidence in this article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Vellela, I would be grateful for your feedback on which sources were insufficiently reputed. The main sources are Sports Illustrated (si.com) and Inside World Football (http://www.insideworldfootball.com/), which is a well reputed industry publication. Also - would be good to know which parts you feel are written like an advertisement. It all seems objective information to me. Having spent time developing the page, I would be grateful for pointers on how to improve the page and any others I do, rather than just having it deleted. Sorry you felt I incorrectly removed the block - I only did so because I thought I had resolved the issues. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Fish (talk • contribs) 11:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave others to make that judgment to avoid any suggestion of partiality. Incidentally, it is often unwise to make assumptions about the gender of editors, such assumptions can often prove to be wrong. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Apologies for the use of 'Mr'. I only did it because I saw others on your Talk doing so. Hope no offence was taken. Ben Fish (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A purely promotional article that attempts to inherit notability from its founder and its users. I'd advise the article creator to read WP:INHERITORG, WP:GNG, and definitely WP:COI Exemplo347 (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Comment(possible merge?) doesn't seem notable, but perhaps some of the information and sourcing could be merged or shifted with the Eddie Lewis article. There is already a section of the subject on the after mentioned article and it could be expanded with the info and sources from this article if it is deemed relevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:53, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Party (UK)[edit]

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

Non-notable, one-man political party that does not meet the General Notability Guideline & has only ever fielded one candidate in the lowest possible tier of UK politics, gaining 21 votes - I can't see how that record could possibly meet any notability guideline that applies to political parties. Sources: 1 & 2 (same source) routine registration information; 3 - three-sentence-long summary in an article about the election candidates; 4 - local news interview; 5 - routine election results announcement. No sustained news coverage found in a WP:BEFORE search. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No coverage in RS. Neiltonks (talk) 13:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per the nomination. Domdeparis (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG as a non-notable political party with a single unsuccessful candidate in a local election, nominated by a now-blocked COI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the editor above means "created by", not "nominated by" - unless I'm blocked and nobody told me! Exemplo347 (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable political party.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:54, 3 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 link to wiktionary. Already covered there: wiktionary:ruddy. czar 05:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruddy[edit]

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

This looks more suitable for Wiktionary as all it does is define the word and mention some usages. Doug Weller talk 10:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a dictionary. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Transwiki to Wikitionary as per nom. J 947 00:47, 4 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus Guingand[edit]

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

I'm unable to find substantial independent coverage of this person in reliable sources to demonstrate that WP:BIO or WP:NARTIST can be met. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not satisfy our notability requirements for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looked for but coulnd not find adequate sources (online).104.163.140.193 (talk) 02:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:55, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The World of Anna Sui (2017 book)[edit]

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

This book is an advertising vehicle for a fashion designer. It's an utterly non-notable topic. Slashme (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of sources listed:

abramsbooks.com - publisher's website; not independent.
thebookseller.com - basically an advertisement for an upcoming book.
amazon.com - commercial website; doesn't establish notability
books.google.com - the book itself; doesn't establish notability
vogue.com - prospective article about the book in a major fashion magazine. Might go some way towards establishing notability
fmtlondon - A brief article about the exhibition, mentions the book in passing
businessoffashion.com - an article written by the author of the book; not independent.

--Slashme (talk) 08:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see enough coverage in reliable sources, and the article is also promotional in nature. Vanamonde (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book has not yet been published - Amazon is taking pre-orders, and it is not yet in any libraries. But it may become notable once it has been published--Anna Sui is a famous designer; other books have been written about her; the publisher is Abrahms, a major very highly reputable art books publisher; the author has written about other people in fashion,. I find it truly absurd when a firm that is actually famous and about which there is abundant real press, thinks it appropriate to hire or assign someone to engage in a publicity campaign on Wikipedia. This and related is the sort of work we usually see about organizations and people who actually need the attempted advertising. The effort seems to be focused on the firm's perfumes division--see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret Wish Fairy Dance. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Searching found nothing helpful. One independent RS with significant coverage is not enough. Fails WP:NBOOK. Gab4gab (talk) 13:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom/DGG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:56, 4 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sascha Blasi[edit]

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

Not notable, appears to be a bunch of made up stuff cobbled together. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is replete with BLP violations. The only two sources I could find are the ones already there in the article; while one source seemed promising,^[9] it is quite local in nature. The second source^[10] on the face of it looks unreliable. Fails GNG/SNG. Lourdes 07:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete if you took out all the content which violates WP:BLP, there would be hardly anything left and certainly nothing notable. The whole article could actually be a joke. If the guy had done a quarter of the things it credits him with, the internet would be overflowing with sources - but it isn't. Neiltonks (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-serving hagiography - main author username suggests paid editing.Peter Rehse (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Neiltonks may be correct - further exploration makes me question the whole intent of the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article he started a billion dollar company, starred in movies, was a great hockey player, got the biggest boxing signing bonus ever, and defeated 12 thugs in a diner fight. He somehow did this all without receiving any significant press coverage. Whether it's a hoax or just extreme hyperbole there's no supporting evidence to show any notability criteria is met. I did find a Sashi Blasi at boxrec, but he lost his only fight in 2002. Papaursa (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only shred of evidence for notability is a community newspaper article. This is woefully short for notability for anybody much less for somebody whose accomplishments are totally made up. -- Whpq (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the sooner the better! I think it is all a big joke--on us! --David Tornheim (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete before he claims to be dating Emma Stone and Emma Watson as well. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 06:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable boxer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:32, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utsav Kapadia[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Unsourced and I cannot find a single reference to him on Google. The article talks about his "hobbies", etc. Not valid for A7 because it does claim significance. Created by a user with the same name as the article. Laurdecl ^talk 06:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given that a significant part of the text of this article is a copyvio from this website, one could consider speeding this too. No reliable sources available to back the claim of the subject. Fails GNG/SNG. Lourdes 08:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it is self-created, could it be moved to User:Utsav kapadiya (without redir)? That seems like a tidy solution. (I'd like to know if he has green skin and scoliosis as appears in the photo.) Jack N. Stock (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced BLP. Claimed "awards" for his work are local to his university. Fails WP:NACTOR Neiltonks (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure Spam. Could have been CSD per G3. Jupitus Smart 06:21, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chandni Sharma[edit]

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

Winner of non-notable beauty pageants fails to satisfy WP:NMODEL. The article was created by a confirmed sockpuppet of Sky Groove (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sky Groove). GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete beauty pageants are not at a level to show notability, nor is her career as a model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When the contest she won is itself not notable, there is no notability in being the winner (And I know that notability is not inherited). Jupitus Smart 06:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:00, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common English Language Mistakes Among Persians[edit]

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

Article creator contested PROD. This article is pure unsourced original research. The edit summary contesting the original PROD claimed that it comes from personal experience and a group of Persians on Facebook. While I think this might be useful somewhere, WP:NOT applies here. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:15, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No references cited. No potential references in search tools. Pure original research. Out with it. Tapered (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Pure WP:OR, no references, no need to spend a week debating it. Neiltonks (talk) 14:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced, and probably unable to be credibly sourced by any unaffiliated references Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be an interesting read on a travel blog, but not an encyclopedia article. ValarianB (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article is not only completely unsourced but also not properly formatted as per Wikipedia guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Unreferenced OR. MB 00:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found it interesting but WP:OR is a problem. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:OR based list of words. Jupitus Smart 06:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:02, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bjølsen (bus stop)[edit]

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

Non-notable bus stop. Similar to Sagene (bus stop) MB 05:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bus stops are not inherently notable. WP:NOTTRAVEL. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, clearly fails WP:GNG. Laurdecl ^talk 07:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, have been unable to find anything on this bus stop, and gmaps shows it as a standard modern bus shelter, so no heritage issues. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bus stops almost always fail WP:GNG and this is no exception. Ajf773 (talk) 07:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No bus stops are notable, even the major ones in London fail GNG!! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no indication that this bus stop is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:58, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:04, 3 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Davies (American Actor)[edit]

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

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

Notability not established. Majority of his films are not notable enough to have their own articles. JDDJS (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lepricavark (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has only one reliable source, not dedicated to Davies. No sources available using search tools. Ergo, not notable. Delete. Tapered (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Among the most promising sources already on the page are those from something called Sonoma Christian Home. Here: [11] is the mag's self-description. It looks like a commercial venture, an online, niche, lifestyle magazine for Christian women. 55,000 people follow the mag's Facebook page, according to Facebook.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Sourced to small publications, but even in these, as with the review in The New American he is mentioned, not discussed in a any substantive way. it may simply be WP:TOOSOON. Fell free to flag me if someone sources it more persuasively.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Davies has had roles in multiple notable films listed in the article lead. In I'm Not Ashamed he had a major role. In Courageous it's not clear how significant his role was. Possibly passes WP:NACTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We would need WP:RS that speak about Davies in some detail. I'm Not Ashamed, and Courageous (film) are real movies, but minor ones. I tried searches on the name of each film + Ben Davies, but failed ot find articles that did more than mention him.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Basir[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. I was unable to find significant coverage of the company. I found three hits on Google News but none of them were in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references. Search tools produce no reliable sources. Subject has no notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. The article does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) since the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Sources could not be found even after a search. - tucoxn\^talk 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:06, 3 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. Article also warrants improvement. (non-admin closure) J 947 00:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Grutter[edit]

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

This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation scripts using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, by an editor who felt the content translation also looks OK, which I thought was quite a remarkable thing to say about an article including sentences like The lyric of this period characterized by her subjectivity, as well as by the research to the social complaint, the erotic thematic and the trasformaciones of the modernity or The writings of Grütter move away from the metric tradition, the strict versificación gives her a step towards poetry more prosaica and closer to the daily language.

This badly-translated rubbish was generated with a couple of mouseclicks, incompletely fixed up by an editor without dual fluency, and abandoned in the Wikipedia mainspace in the hope that others would fix it. It's a textbook example of WP:KITTENS. Deleting it doesn't prevent an editor from writing proper content in this space. In fact, it clears the way for them to do so. —S Marshall T/C 21:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources for this 20th century Costa Rican poet are readily found in news archives searches En Espanol, but editors can readily verify notability by clicking on Books and JSTOR in the toolbar above. I suggest that we cut it down to a extremely brief stub, keep, and leave it tagged for sourcing. Reason for preferring keep, it that editors (especially new and occassional editors) are sometimes willing to expand articles that exist. @Shawn in Montreal:, if you're good with that, I'll return and cut it down to a brief, sourced stub. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 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 11:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Subject appears notable but suffers from a dearth of English-language sources.RudyLucius (talk) 19:59, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Palladino[edit]

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

This person is relatively unknown, an a non-public figure maju (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FallingGravity (talk) 08:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 20:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While the subject can't simply inherit notability from Mashape, there does seem to be enough mention in the sources given to establish notability separately from the company. Not that I'm saying there is simply enough, I think it just scrapes by WP:GNG. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scraperite[edit]

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

Delete - Article is on a product which appears to be an advertisement / non-notable. Jack Frost (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a great little gadget, but WP:NOTPROMOTION, have been unable to find any reliable sources, the only possibly useable source in the article is the The Daytona Beach News-Journal article, if anyone can check that it does cover the scraperite in depth ... but then thats only one source. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Although this is a cool product, it does not pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) since the product (or the company that makes it, Composite Blades Inc.) has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I could not find any articles about the product or the company in a search and no articles were listed on the product's website. - tucoxn\^talk 18:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:25, 3 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. czar 05:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Scott (author)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a blogger and activist, written with a decidedly advertorial skew to it and referenced exclusively to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, a blogger is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourceable as passing a specific notability criterion, but nothing here shows that. Bearcat (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. The article is self-sourced. Searching found only a book he wrote. Nothing suggesting notability found. Gab4gab (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on a writer based entirely on primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and they definitely don't meet WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable author.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 3 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Panafrica[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. declined prod. the only sources I could find is listings in travel books. 2 sources confirm "The hotel is said to breed its own chickens." is hardly a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for clear failing to assert notability WP:GNG. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. "It exists" is about the best that can be said. It's an average hotel by any standards and is only referenced in travel guides. Since Wiki is not a travel guide, this doesn't belong.Glendoremus (talk) 05:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a beautiful hotel; if I got a free plane ticket there, I'd stay there. However, every resources describing it is little more than advertising. Delete per Glendoremus. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above editors. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:29, 3 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.