Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 February 26 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assia Abdullah[edit]

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

A non-notable sports commentator. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Florescu[edit]

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

Two reasons to delete. One, the subject hasn't really done anything notable. I mean, sure, he's had an interesting career, but at a fairly inconspicuous level in whatever he's dabbled in - politics, business, journalism and television; nothing stands out. Two, the sources don't back up a claim of notability, as defined by WP:BASIC. I may be missing something among the forest of cruft, which really isn't helpful to his case, but things like this or this or this or this do nothing to advance the idea he may be notable. (Evidently because they aren't independent.) Same goes for things like this (passing mention) or this (editorial written by the subject). As for the royal decoration: one, of course the Romanian royal family is going to decorate someone who makes a glowing documentary about one of them; two, Romania hasn't been a monarchy since 1947, so it's a fairly meaningless private honor.

Anyway, to sum up, I'm simply not seeing significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. - Biruitorul Talk 00:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete. My gut feeling from reading the article is that this is a puff piece (probably by a paid publicist) about a non-notable person. There's a carpet-bomb of references. I spot-checked two of them from the NY TImes:
    • CAMPAIGN-TECHNIQUE EXPERTS SEE DIFFICULTIES FOR CONSENSUS. Passing quote from the Florescu, in the 5th paragraph, in an article on another topic.
    • The NY Times, Steve Knoll (February 19, 1984). "Candidates weigh the uses of cable". This is a broken link. Searching for the title in google, and in the NY Times own search engine both failed to locate the article.
I'l make the same offer I make in all these cases. If somebody can pick the two or three (but no more) best sources to demonstrate notability, I'll take a closer look. But I'm not going to grovel over 46 references, most of which look dubious on the surface, and the best two of which I did examine and turned out to be sub-standard. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the tentative part of my not-a-vote-bolded-sounds-bite above. Nothing I've seen here over the past few days of discussion has demonstrated any useful sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This was also discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 19. To be fair, the nominator there was encouraged to write a new article, so this isn't really forum shopping, but I will note that they were selective about which suggestions they acted on (i.e. writing a new article) and which they didn't (i.e. supplying the new information which they asserted had come to light). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article creator tried to put this up at DRV, claiming "significant new information" had come up since the prior consensus to delete, but not bothering to state what this new information was or how they intended to source it. All available evidence points to this being a vanity/spam article for a non-notable person, almost certainly created by someone with a conflict of interest. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To John Pack Lambert, RoySmith. John Pack Lambert: This is info regarding the links you are mentioning above:

    • The NY Times, Steve Knoll (February 19, 1984). "Candidates weigh the uses of cable". - THIS here should be the link (it is a scanned article, added because Florescu, president of VPI back-then, is telling some info in respect of using cable -this is the '80, big thing back then, I believe http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-mIV_cJPYBqQ/TaMPoWOWBnI/AAAAAAAAAAk/_nGnaOXU3BA/s1600/New+York+Times-+Article+about+John+Florescu.JPG
    • The second article you mentioned, I added to back up the claim "<it>he pioneered the use of cable television to broadcast political commercials" [considering that the mention in the article from 1982 saying "John Florescu, a cable television expert from Boston, told of using cable to reach Massachusetts people interested in local government, to get voters to caucuses, and of using a Portuguese language channel to reach fishermen in Fall River. He predicted that Democratic Presidential hopefuls would use cable in Iowa and New Hampshire in 1984, saying it had particular value in primaries and caucuses where turnout was small.</it>" might back that up].

Mention: I can definitely say that there is no interest (financially or others similar) and I do want to shed some light, giving you some context, to reconsider your suspicions of being a puff piece. I am involved in a research, along with Matei Cazacu (Romanian historian), about Florescu family (the Romanian boyars), and the subject of this article is part of the livings that are still with us today (and apparently he is receiving more screening time starting last year). I took many of the info collected in the first deleted article and tried to source those (I considered the discussion started there to harm this individual -making him look like a villain who wanted to brag online about himself with undocumented info. I personally found that discussion searching the name "John Florescu" on Google, and I found that is a bad thing to have online for someone that is fairly reputable). And this is what I tried to fix (you can go back in the Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 February 19 to see that these are the thoughts that I tried to express there as well. This is the reason so many sources do appear in the bottom of this article (for trying to undo the things said in the first article about "getting a vanity page with unbacked info"). Going back, I realise this is maybe not the best way to write an article about this living individual; would you agree that is a good way to take out all the old descriptive facts and stick with only the notable ones? This is my first article on wiki and I spent a lot reading the rules, and, no doubt, I definitely missed some. I look for some guidance in making the correct editorial decisions since I am convinced you are all acting in good faith and only wanting to keep this encyclopaedia clean, even if it is user generated.

To RoySmith getting back with what you requested to get "two or three best sources to demonstrate notability" please take some time to read these hand picked below.

    • 1. Producer (last movie got him decorated by Crown Princess Margareta of Romania *IMDb LIST HERE* (Biruitorul the documentary is not making glowing mentions about the Royal House, it just presents facts from the western perspective)
    • 2. Filmography (2004-1986) http://www.hollywood.com/celebrities/john-m-florescu-58402708/
    • 3. Trump vs Clinton -last documentary made in late 2016 READ ARTICLE *HERE* PLEASE (this is a piece in Romanian; this producer is getting more screen time in the past months being the Romanian-American that is analysing the impact of the US elections for Europe)

Thank you all for keeping this a safe place and looking forward to get some guidance. ----MariaOlteanu

Thank you for supplying those. Unfortunately, the first two (IMDb and holywood.com) don't meet our requirement for reliable sources. You should read WP:RS to understand better what we're looking for. The third one, as you point out, is written in Romanian, which I can't read (and, unfortunately, the automatic translation services don't seem to handle Romanian). The fact that it's in Romanian doesn't disqualify it as a source, but as a practical matter, it makes it difficult for me to evaluate it. It would be useful if you could produce a translation so the reviewers here could read it in English. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check this video here RoySmith. It is faster than translating the Romanian text, and it is easier for you to get a better grasp of the documentary production and role in the Romanian news. I will read the WP:RS, thanks for the link and suggestion. ---[[[MariaOlteanu]] 20:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaOlteanu (talk • contribs)

    • Pro TV advertising a segment produced by Florescu for Pro TV doesn't count as "significant coverage [of Florescu] in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". You might wish to ponder the meaning of those words, and come back with sources that fit the description. - Biruitorul Talk 22:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Biruitorul it si not just Pro TV covering the latest production of Florescu "Trump vs. Trump". You can also see it here on Digi 24, here on Mediafax, here on Hotnews, here on RFI. This is one of the documentaries Florescu produced in 2016 (not a segment as you said above, but a stand alone piece aired by PRO TV), and, just like the rest of documentaries made by Florescu, it is significantly covered in press in multiple reliable independent sources, as you can see here. ----User:MariaOlteanu 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]


—Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

  • First, let's address the elephant in the room here: are you John Florescu or someone being paid or compensated to attempt to get this article created? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, while we're at it: no one's going to bother responding to that wall of text, but I'll address just one aspect. Commenting on the recent American presidential election, even producing a half-hour segment on it, isn't really indicative of notability. Not only did thousands of American journalists do some version of that, even in Romania, it wasn't exactly unusual; see e.g. here and here and here and here and here and here and here. - Biruitorul Talk 23:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your examples above, (n.n. listed by Biruitorul), are examples of articles on the U.S. election subject. Florescu made a documentary about the impact of the U.S. election in Europe (covered here on Adevărul, or here in Capital. It is largely covered by independent reliable sources. It is a documentary of significant importance, since it is covered by so many notable Romanian publications. ----User:MariaOlteanu 00:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lenahan Addressing the elephant. No, I am not. I do not search to argue the Wiki rules. If this person does not meet the criteria, then, of course, a page mentioning him is not needed and one should not try to push that. I do care for your time as well as mine, and I understand how enormous amount of resources are invested in moderating all these. It looks like I made all the incorrect decision following the last advice received here. Trying to fix the info that comes up on this page triggered a complete new avalanche of issues. I am searching for advice on how all the mentions that are potentially harming this individual can be deleted. If you can direct me to read some sources here it would be much appreciated. As I said above, I search this individual's name on Google and found a wiki page mentioning him as a pusher for a "vanity page" -this page. Whomever did this page, did nothing but harming a living individual that is respectable and in no case would try to create a page like this and exposing himself. This is what I tried to correct. Is there any way you can have a piece of advice for me knowing all the history behind this? ---User:MariaOlteanu —Preceding undated comment added 12:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC) ::Weak keep, leaning towards deletion.... Article would need severe work to warrant staying, though.RudyLucius (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

  • Hi RudyLucius, can you advise if I should start editing the article just now? | RudyLucius can you advise on the new editing pls?----(talk) 22:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)blocked as sockpuppet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN RoySmith: is the source above compliant IYO?

What does IYO mean? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Your Opinion. Just an acronym. User:MariaOlteanu (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I answered that question already. My offer was for you to suggest the two or three best sources for me to look at. You gave me three sources. I looked at them and didn't think they were good enough. I've done my part. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ancona[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable outside of his death. His branch of the Klan has no separate article of its own. Rusted AutoParts 02:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This branch of the KKK should have a separate page. This page shows the the branch is an important KKK group.KU KLUX KAN'T. There is an argument for combining the Ancona page with a page for the Traditionalist American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,, but this group should be covered. After Ancona's death, the group may change. Nereocystis (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is on a person and there is no indication this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment move to "Murder/Death of Frank Ancona" the death is getting coverage in all the big national and international newspapers. The guy got predeath attention (Discovery Channel documentary), among others. Remember we have bad people on here too sometimes. Looks like the trial with the suspected murderer might drag on too. I see no end in possible sources soon. GuzzyG (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no notability based on his position held. I think we should wait for a few months if an article on his death is warranted. LibStar (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 23:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bennetts[edit]

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

Nondescript journalist. Appears to be created based on the INHERITED notability from Muhammad Ali. No reliable sources given to demonstrate notability, nor can I find any online. Primefac (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we need to exercise some care and tact when it comes to BLPs of accomplished article subjects. "Nondescript journalist" is not how I would characterize the article subject, who's a published author, prolific journalist -- with such pieces including this recent major piece in Newsweek, as well as articles in the Times of London, Telegraph, Canada's National Post, The Australian etc. And of course, Politico. So his articles about Russia are literally published the world over, it would seem. As for the question of notability, the article already has one review (ref #6). There is this shared review Commonweal. That's two reviews: typically I look for three as "multiple" per GNG. But taken as a whole, I would say he almost meets my benchmark for GNG and then does meet the first part of criterion #1 WP:JOURNALIST. He's clearly a widely published writer on the vital subject of Russia, whether he has the honour of being related to Ali or not. KEEP. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020[edit]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. It's also doubtful that the Melbourne Rally was targeted at the 2020 re-election. The existing brief mention in the Donald Trump bio is sufficient at this stage. — JFG talk 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was advertised on the website of his campaign organization. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule/register/melbourne-fl-2017/ SecretName101 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 until we can get more info for a full article.
  • Merge or delete – Has practically no information and will likely remain very short for years; anything of particular noteworthiness can be merged into associated articles until around 2019. Master of Time (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way to soon for such an article. President Trump might not live long enough for this to be a reasonable article. I suspect he will, but it is still totally crystal ball at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether he lives to that election or dies (literally or politically) before it does negate the fact that such a campaign existed. The campaign's official organizing body/ staff is already in-place, the campaign has already raised funds, and he has already held a campaign rally. There are plenty of articles about campaigns which ended before any primaries took place (i.e. Lindsey Graham presidential campaign, 2016 and Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012). There are even articles for campaigns which never resulted in an official candidacy (i.e. Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008). Thus I'd argue that this is a moot-point you've brought up. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "other stuff exists" is not an argument in and of itself. However, this is a campaign, and whether it lasts to the election does not change that. SecretName101 (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
President Trump filed a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) for the 2020 election. It states that he does not formally announce his candidacy, but that he reached the threshold requiring him to file as a 2020 presidential candidate to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Act. I added the citation in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he did. You are right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/president-trump-tells-the-fec-he-qualifies-as-a-candidate-for-2020/ SecretName101 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added as an additional citation in the article, as this is a third party source (whereas FEC filings are not), a requirement for WP:N. There are many others, and there will continue to be more. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. This is definitely not something to delete. It is well sourced; I verified and expanded the citations. These are events that have already happened, so it is not "too soon" or speculation. As "examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election" in WP:BALL, then a campaign for that election that is already underway is certainly notable. This should be a request to merge, in which case it would be best to close this RfD, and commence discussion into whether to merge and what article to merge to. I'm not even sure we should merge, but I'd rather have the appropriate process in place before making a decision. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, it's totally unique in the history of America. A candidate who starts campaigning right after being elected, it's probably a worldwide new invention. There's hundred of sources, sources about the start of the campaign, sources about the "why", there's even polls [1] [2] about Trump's reelection. --Deansfa (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if this is like numerous other events, many of those sources will be repeating the same things. Master of Time (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, many sources speaking about the same event kind of repeat the same thing. What else? --Deansfa (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This campaign is going to exist. Therefore keep this article.--Broter (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no way of knowing that. This seems more like wanting to keep it just because he filed, which is inadequate considering he could die, he could decide he doesn't like being president, or any of a number of other things could occur before 2019. At the very least, I don't see why "keep" is any better than "merge" at the current time. Master of Time (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Master of Time, even if that happens, the fact will remain that there still was a campaign. He has fundraised, he has retained a campaign staff. He has maintained officespace housing the campaign headquarters. Again, Evan Bayh never officially launched his 2008 presidential campaign, however it has been viewed as noteworthy and existent-enough to have its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll just note that that article was created in 2009, not 2005. There is no information here that couldn't easily be merged elsewhere. Master of Time (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to an appropriate article. That he fulfilled a legal requirement by filing a form does not make this a notable topic in its own right at this point in time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not crystal ball, has been cited to numerous reliable sources. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To paraphrase someone from the article's talk page, I don't know why he's doing this, but he is. This is an official campaign, and even though it's highly unusual for a president to start running for re-election so early, it is happening. And as an incumbent, I'd say that makes it notable enough. --pluma♫ ♯ 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's already filed with the FEC for his 2020 campaign, and has already held a campaign rally that attracted substantial media attention. In particular, The Atlantic has referred to the Florida Rally as the kickoff of the campaign [3]. Given that his campaign can only become more notable with time, I believe keeping the article is the best option. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason I created the article is because the campaign is up and running and is real. Why it's this early I haven't a clue, and frankly I don't care. All I care about whether or not it is real. It is and is also notable. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this was deleted, it's a fair assumption it would be the first time for an article about a US president's re-election campaign (or probably any head of state). Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article clearly deserves to be retained. SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Who can figure out Donald "I Did It My Way" Trump? It may seem strange but it definitely is a campaign. Buster Seven Talk 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noteworthy topic that already has began. MB298 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect as per WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • HAHAHAHAHAHA. Never thought I'd say this, but Keep. Trump already announced the beginning of his re-election campaign; there are reliable sources for it, per above. ansh666 02:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it fits all policies for inclusion but I think a good case for WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL could be made. DrStrauss talk 13:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absurd. If all the OR and source misrepresentation were removed, we'd be left with an article that said little more than "Donald Trump filed a form with the FEC. A blog post comparing Trump's style of 'permanent campaign' with that of his predecessors said that Trump was campaigning earlier and more aggressively than prior Presidents." Meanwhile virtually the entire article focuses on the pointlessly trivial coatrack stuff about Sweden, which doesn't have anything to do with this highly debatable claim about a "2020 presidential campaign". I'd say some topic bans are in order. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:CRYSTAL. A section in the 2016 campaign article is enough for now, as this will most likely remain fairly short until at least 2019. This is Paul (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By way of comparison, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (his second) was started as a redirect on 13 April 2010 and became an article on 4 April 2011, which corresponds with my suggestion above. This is Paul (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Abdul-Hamid[edit]

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

As far as I can tell Abdul-Hamid has never played in a league that would grant him notability. The coverage he has received is not at the level of GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:11, 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. Seems like reliable sources here do not offer enough material to write an article about. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girl Crush (artist)[edit]

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

Musician with no evidence of meeting WP:MUSICBIO. Speedy deletion nomination was declined due to having a claim of significance, but the only claim of significance is WP:BLP1E coverage an outfit she wore at an event, which is irrelevant for a biography about a musician, and irrelevant in any case. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Found citations as performing musical artist for a nationally syndicated show and listing as musical artist in the MTV website per MUSICBIO http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0821375/fullcredits?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm, http://www.mtv.com/artists/girl-crush/biography (small bio entry) Neither source controlled by the subject in question. The subject seems to exhibits high profile behavior as well as notability. New York Times and US Magazine have added more Red Carpet coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgemck408 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    IMDB is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as evidence of notability. The MTV page is just a profile description in a directory, not significant coverage. Coverage by NYT and US are trivial mentions focusing on the BLP1E outfit. None of this meets WP:GNG and especially not WP:NARTIST. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Article shows no significance in relation to the artist mentioned besides one night of what they were wearing to the awards show. They were not nominated for an award, therefore WP:MUSICBIO is not met, WP:BLP1E is also invalid as it only goes into details on how the clothes were recepted, and also fails to meet WP:GNG as for overall sources cited. Also, youtube is not a reliable source either, which is used in the last one. ActiveListener95|(˥ǝʇs Ɔɥɐʇ) 03:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:MUSICBIO Non notable music artist. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be kept because it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable resources including LA Times, People magazine, Elle, Teen Vogue among others. Therefore the article subject meets WP:GNG. One event does not apply because the article covers many aspects of the artist's life and career, not just one outfit worn at an event. More articles are still coming out and a new reference was added just today to MTV. The article has grown and evolved adding more references and coverage since this nomination and first few discussion posts were written. Closing admin please read the talk page under contested deletion section at talk page because some newer editors are leaving arguments and discussion there rather than here. Antonioatrylia (talk) 05:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What significant coverage? Let's look at the sources. LA Times: trivial mention. New York Times: trivial mention. People magazine: Trivial mention. Elle: Interview, which is a primary source, and doesn't count toward notability. Teen Vogue: some pictures but no actual coverage of the subject except for the BLP1E outfit. Sorry, this subject is vary far from meeting WP:GNG let alone WP:NACTOR. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should stay as it does meet WP:GNG and cites multiple reputable sources as referred to above; LA Times, People Magazine, E News etc. Though not all cited in this specific article, major sources like NY Times and Romper covered this artist as well and not only for what she wore, but also looking into who she is as an artist. This page has grown and should be given the chance to continue to be edited and grow. Eever19 (talk) 05:51 24 February 2017 (UTC)
    The "multiple sources" are not WP:SIGCOV. See my previous comment above. Trivial mentions don't count. No sources have been forthcoming that provide significant coverage of the subject as an artist. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thus several respondents here disagree with your opinion. The article subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources about her life and career and also contains information about an outfit she wore to an award show. So BLP1event does not apply. Article passes GNG which supercedes the lower threshold policies. Sure there are a couple references to imdb or youtube which are not considered reliable, but the reliable sources from NY Times, LA Times, People magazine, Elle, and Teen Vogue are indeed considered reliable sources. My discussion to keep is based on policies. I stand with my keep vote. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As to the use of interviews in an article there are mixed opinions on that. If an interview is the only reference in an article it should not be used to denote notability, but when one interview is used with multiple reliable sources in an article, it may be taken into consideration when proving notabilty. Antonioatrylia (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Antonioatrylia: Where is the significant coverage? You keep gong on about NY Times, LA Times, People magazine, Elle, and Teen Vogue. Nobody is saying those aren't reliable. There is no significant coverage of the subject's life and work in those publications; therefore, your argument isn't grounded in Wikipedia policy. LA Times, NY Times, People: all trivial mentions, they don't count. Elle is a primary source, and Teen Vogue has no coverage, just some pictures. We need significant coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some fleeting mentions for a silly outfit do not make for notability. The above mentioned reliable sources simply mention the subject. That's not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:42, 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Markin[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a politician, notable only for serving on the municipal council of a suburban city and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York. This article does not demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than the norm, however; it's based mostly on WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaigns themselves. There are also BLP issues here, as he was convicted of a crime in 1984. However, that's not a good basis for a Wikipedia article about someone who didn't already pass our notability criteria for other reasons -- given that as far as we know he's still living as a private citizen, and his crime was a relatively minor one of little enduring import, for WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons he should be allowed to just put it behind him instead of having it immortalized on one of the most widely read websites in the world. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It seems that you are trying to elicit sympathy for Markin in your attempt to remove this article. Several politicians have had brushes with law pre or post term. I don't think that should be a factor in the removal decision. His notability as a politician is questionable except for the fact that he was as an ardent supporter of the Spadina expressway. Removal of this article may give the impression that there was not as much support for the expressway as there was in North York. I think that alone warrants a vote for keeping this article. The other thing is that someone did go to the trouble of researching this article and reliably citing it which also should be a factor for the keep side. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Where was the discussion that established the consensus that "While we accept Toronto's city councillors as notable under WP:NPOL because it's an international global city, that does not extend to the councillors of the pre-amalgamation suburbs -- prior to 1997, the notability pass only goes to the core city and not to Etobicoke or Scarborough or North York"? AusLondonder (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a longstanding consensus that the presumption of notability that's extended to city councillors in global cities does not extend to city councillors in those cities' suburbs. A city councillor in a suburban municipality of Toronto can still occasionally clear the bar if he can be well-sourced over GNG as more than just locally notable, but he's not automatically entitled to an article just because he exists. And the place for content about support for or opposition to the Spadina Expressway is in Spadina Expressway, not in spinning off separate BLPs of every single person who ever expressed an opinion one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep EncyclopediaUpdaticus makes some very good points. I would add that it seems that editors interpret the position requirements in a way that does not advance Wikipedia's mission to "empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content". If an elected official does not have a position of a certain rank, that in itself is not a reason for deletion. It only means that the position alone - absent good sourcing, additional coverage, or other elements of notability - do not satisfy the requirements for inclusion. A solidly written article about a low level official needs to be included. As the process stands right now, I am concerned that great articles might be deleted merely because someone was not high enough in government. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the solid substance and good sourcing here? "Presented a $1,000 audio-visual presentation to the mayor and council of Wrocław, Poland on the culture, history and topography of North York" is a reason for a Wikipedia article somehow? Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 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 01:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's one line from a much larger, well sourced entry. He's served as a diplomat for his community which I think is worth including. I wish that all the cites were available electronically, but I don't think that makes them unreliable. Bangabandhu (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a local city council member and failed candidate at a higher level. This is not enough to show that he is notable. The sources are all routine coverage, no clear notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the sources do not establish notability. Separately, the subject appears to currently be a private citizen, with the info about his arrest being an invasion of privacy. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps a suburban councillor wouldn't be notable for his career alone. But looking at some the sources in the article on-line "City issues 73 repair orders on Murray Markin's house". Toronto Star. December 1, 1976. p. A10 is quite an in-depth feature, and more than meets WP:GNG requirements. Combined with the news reports of this cocaine arrest, he more than meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per K.e.coffman, far too much information on personal affairs for somebody who probably fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. DrStrauss talk 13:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. local politician holding no major position, even locally. I don't se how any of the referencesare in depth--they all refer to trivial local events, or mere notices of appearances at events. Tripping over a manhole cover does not make someone notable. Nor does being arrested for cocaine possession. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 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. Redirects can be created at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Clifford[edit]

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

This page seems to have been created by a closely related party. A quick web search matches the username of the page creator as an employee of this page's subject, and notability concerns have arisen. A14lbham (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The determination of notability has no relationship to the authorship of an article. Largoplazo (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Entrepreneur First. Although authorship cannot be used to suggest a lack of notability, a quick google search failing to show many results does leave me suspecting he is non-notable outside of Entrepreneur First. A weak argument could be made for notability as he has been presented with an MBE as per WP:NBIO, but I don't believe this is enough to warrant for his own article. PriceDL (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Wikipedia is not a platform for people to advertise themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 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. But needs a complete rewrite.  Sandstein  21:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal Golden Visa[edit]

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

Portugal promotion Atsme📞📧 17:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to add that a Visa program for a country should be added to the respective country's WP article, not as a stand alone article which makes it appear purely promotional. Atsme📞📧 01:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The subject itself may be notable. The programme is widely known, at least here in Portugal, mostly because there have been some investigations and some top level public administration were detained (news, from 2014, at observador.pt) on suspicions on making some money on the side while granting them. Later on the then Ministry of Internal Administration (Portugal), Miguel Macedo resigned his office. A trial is to start next monday (2017-02-13)(news, today, at publico.pt). The Golden Visa by themselves are probably a minor administrative proceeding, and the current article is, as nominated, merely promotional. So, expand is the first option, or delete, the current content is merely promotional, as nominated. Nabla (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - it's certainly worthy of mention in Portugal, but does it warrant being a stand alone? It's solicitation as a stand alone. Just my thoughts....Atsme📞📧 22:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your query, Atsme, if it meets GNG, then a stand alone article is warranted. Schwede66 07:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Schwede66, but I'm of the mind the article is promotional in a commercial sense - described as an "investment scheme" - therefore, has questionable encyclopedic value. I see little difference in this VISA program and most tourism promotions, all of which are promotional marketing. Atsme📞📧 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is NOT worth of mention in the Portugal article. At most it should be linked from some article linked from some article (linked from some article...) linked from Portugal. That is, having it in the main article would be undue weight, even for the scandal involving a ministry and top administrative people (sorry, I can't find the correct English words right now). Nabla (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please consider my initial "comment" as a "delete, without prejudice for recreation", unless someone expands it (for myself I am sick of the continuous stream of scandals of this guy robbed that to take the time to write about this one - plus, scandals is far from "my thing" over here :-) - Nabla (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a simple delete response would work *Delete? Regardless, point taken. Atsme📞📧 20:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I agree that the Canadian article is encyclopedic as it provides information about temporary residency. It is not a promotion. The article in question here actually is an undeniable promotion, and states that it is a promotion and is written like a promotion: The Portugal Golden Visa is the Portugal residency program to promote people to move and live in Portugal. That is not at all like the Canadian explanation of temp residency. My concern is that if WP allows these marketing promotions to stand, it will open a can of worms. Atsme📞📧 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article addresses an aspect of a country's immigration policy. We have plenty of this on US policy. I agree that the article could be better, but I think it's more substantive policy than promotion.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:32, 5 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 03:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy McDowell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Couldn't find any articles about him on Google, ref is his IMDB page, and parts appear to be minor. LovelyLillith (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More substantive, policy- and guideline-grounded input needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 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) 19:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toshony[edit]

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

While the existence of this hoax is clearly established, and it had some ephemeral reportage, it has no durable notability. jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the rationale of the nominator and the event does not appear to have established sufficient notability. -- HighKing++ 15:43, 5 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 redirect to Trans man. Unanimous consensus. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 07:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transmasculine Definition[edit]

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

Its content is duplicated and worded much better in articles including gender dysphoria, transgender, transsexual, gender etc. DrStrauss talk 13:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: as a redirect? I don't think that very many people will type that in anyway and with "definition" it's not suited to WP WP:NOTDICTIONARY. DrStrauss talk 13:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. I've adjusted my !v on reappraisal. — O Fortuna! Imperatrix mundi. 16:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrStrauss: You're right about typing that in! But, is there no salvageable maerial from it (to add to the object page) before redirecting? O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: if we're talking about properly sourced content then it's little, if any. DrStrauss talk 16:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Trans man, which is about the same topic, as far as I can tell as a layperson. Or to Transmasculine, if it turns out that there are differences. But this is clearly a content fork of either of the two.  Sandstein  14:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:36, 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 no consensus. Weak consensus that it passes GNG. If there is another deletion discussion concerning this article then the nominator should put a strong deletion rationale up. (non-admin closure) J947 03:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harrogate bus route 36[edit]

Harrogate bus route 36 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bus route, fails WP:NOTGUIDE Nördic Nightfury 09:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"WP:NOTGUIDE" is too vague; could you be more specific? Peter James (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Seems notable to me, as it has its own route branded buses and also on the basis that there are some secondary sources covering the topic, and more can be found, however its not even mentioned in the BBC source (source 3). Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 22:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That reference was originally to a BBC news programme, not to the website; it was changed by another editor to a link that doesn't mention it. There is some coverage online from the BBC but not from 2008: "Commuters lured by luxury bus" (27 October 2003), around the same time as source 1. Peter James (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only significant secondary source cited, the BBC, does not mention the route. Fails WP:GNG.Charles (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some more cites needed, but secondary coverage from multiple sources has resulted in an article that is more than just a copy of a timetable. And with no listing of frequencies, hours of operation, fares etc anyone trying to plan a journey using the article would not find enough info here, making WP:NOTGUIDE a moot point. Strato6 (talk) 08:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete coverage is all routine. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just as relevant as other bus routes that were kept after discussion. Some more information on the history would be appreciated, though. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reason for deletion, either. Anyway, the line has been discussed as an example for a successful modal shift towards public transport in several learned articles, also outside the UK, which IMHO makes it rather notable. I have included a few references in the article. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See my second comment above and note that reliable secondary sources exist. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What secondary sources? Icannot find any.Charles (talk) 08:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsner, Beale, White, Ten Percent Club ... all proper books and professional journal articles. Google Scholar may find more, but these show already notability far beyond the region. --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pilsner is not a learned journal article, it is an industry trend piece. Beale is unverifiable as listed. White is indeed a journal article, but is one sentence is a very broad survey of rural transportation in Europe. Ten Percent Club appears to combine the detriments of Pilsner and Beale as both an industry trend piece (judging by the title), and unverifiable as listed. Notability asks more of us as editors than throwing in a bunch of Google Scholar results. Perhaps oddly enough, I am changing my !vote to Keep. Not because of these poor sources, but because of the BBC and Harrogate Advertiser articles, which are enough to pass WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another non-notable run of the mill bus route. Ajf773 (talk) 07:24, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – passes WP:GNG pretty clearly as far as I can tell. Laurdecl talk 04:09, 5 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 no consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Klinck[edit]

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

Non-notable producer. Winged Blades Godric 10:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades Godric 10:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The creator of the article seems to be a COI editor (see my comments on the talk page) and this article reads like a resume. Her awards are very industry-specific and it is unlikely that over and above the routine coverage of her wins there is much in-depth coverage to satisfy GNG, I couldn't find any. Domdeparis (talk) 10:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to respectfully disagree with Winged Blades of Godricl and Domdeparis. The subject being written about is an important member of the documentary film community both in Canada and internationally. She has been nominated and won several awards both in Canada and abroad for visual research. Her work is of such high quality that she was asked by documentarian Werner Herzog to work on his recent documentary Into the Inferno. For these two editors to dismiss her awards as being industry specific is to overlook the importance of the Canadian film industry. Visual research is an integral part of historical documentary filmmaking just as cinematography is to feature film. The article has been edited to not read like a resume but to present the facts supported by multiple sources. I ask that both Winged Blades and Domdeparis redact their request that this page be deleted based on their belief that Elizabeth is insignificant. Or, if they are unwilling to do that, explain in greater detail why they do not believe she is worthy of mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnnmartin (talk • contribs) 17:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Jackjohnnmartin: I may be wrong and of course I am not outing you but if the fact that your user name is the same as her husband's is just a coincidence it might be useful to state that here but if it isn't I do understand why you are defending your article and that you feel personally slighted by the nomination. it is very difficult to have a Neutral point of view when there is a conflict of interest but please don't take this nomination so personally. Just as a reminder conflict of interests should be accompanied by a disclosure on associated talk pages --Domdeparis (talk) 09:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, I see she's won a Gemini Award, among others, which was Canada's highest TV honour. We was the subject of this profile in the Canadian documentary journal, POV. But that looks to be an affiliated reference. But POV also reported separately that she received a lifetime achievement award from FOCAL_International#FOCAL_International_Awards. Hot Docs, which has no affiliation with her, did an interview with her for their industry series. I think we may have a visual researcher who genuinely meets WP:CREATIVE criterion #1. The lifetime achievement award from UK-based FOCAL seems like a really big deal. keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and there's also this interview with her in Archival Storytelling: A Filmmaker's Guide to Finding, Using, and Licensing Third-Party Visuals and Music, which you can read in Gbooks. (The book ref also verifies that she was an Emmy nominee). The nomination statement errs in calling her a "producer." She is not. But she seems to be eminently notable in her field. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Just for info she is a member of the board of directors of FOCAL international and the award may be a big deal but giving awards to your board of directors is not very independent. The subject has worked for Hotdocs in the past by giving workshops, here. That said when you work in a very specialised field you start to have connections to all the different institutions and publications after a while. Domdeparis (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't notice the prior affiliation with FOCAL, you're quite right. But I see she's won three Gemini/Canadian Screen Awards (the Geminis became the CSAs) which are Canada's highest screen honours. There's also the News & Documentary Emmy Award nom for HBO's Middle Sexes. Despite the very valid points you've raised, I still believe she's a notable visual researcher per CREATIVE. COI is always a concern, but when we've a notable topic I tend to come down on the side of clean up if necessary, add a connected contributor template to the article talk page, but preserve. And I for one think that's what we have here. Of course, others are coming down elsewhere, I get that. (I also see we don't even have a category, Category:Visual researchers, fwiw.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really sure that a visual researcher is considered as a CREATIVE, it is more of a documentalist. According to the Visual Researchers Society of Canada here
"Q: What exactly does a visual researcher do?
A: A researcher wears several hats and you can hire them for one aspect of your project, or for all of it. They do visual research—looking for footage and stills in a very wide range of sources using an extensive network of contacts. They can also manage the archive/asset as it comes in, logging it and tracking it in the post-production phase so regular costings and copyright assessments can be done. They can also handle financial negotiations with suppliers, using their preferred rates and their own negotiating skills to get the best possible rate for the material and use your money in the most efficient way. Finally they can handle all of the license agreement negotiations to ensure that you have all the protections you need in place and provide a complete package of deliverables at the end."
Unless I'm very much mistaken we are not really in the domain of the creative process this is more of a technical/administrative role. It is fair to say that the Canadian screen Awards are the equivalent to the British Academy Television Awards (and not the BAFTA as such) but there are no awards for researchers and in the Emmys there is a single category for research in the News and Documentary awards. The visual research award seems to be a very specific Canadian award that doesn't have a parallel in other award ceremonies. So to be perfectly honest it's not surprising that there isn't a Category:Visual researchers. Domdeparis (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:30, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow The ArchAngel[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for WP:MUSICBIO. The page creator could be the subject himself. Marvellous Spider-Man 10:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is no significant coverage about this musician in independent reliable sources. The references in the article serve to verify information in the article but are for the most part, simply directory entries which do nothing to establish notability. The best source is this, and Shadow The ArchAngel is literally one musician in a list of musicians listed in one sentence of the article. This is well short of what is needed for inclusion in Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:16, 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 keep. MBisanz talk 23:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones[edit]

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

Contested prod, query notability, only a small amount of trivial coverage. This person was mentioned in passing during an earlier deletion discussion in relation to her older brother. However the argument in that case was that he was likely to become Earl of Snowdon eventually, that argument does not apply in her case. PatGallacher (talk) 13:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Nom, See the discussion I was referring to. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones PatGallacher (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that clicking toolbar is misleading because virtually nothing comes up on Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones. You need ot search : "Margarita Armstrong-Jones". E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Despite the fact that the peasants find her revolting and the deletionsists are storming the gates of the palace, Her Youthful Ladyship gets kept because she gets ongoing coverage in the press and because of the number of number of books that give her a shout-out, not to mention the ~500 hits per day that her Wikipedia page gets. A personal note to User:PatGallacher, I feel your pain, truly I do. Like her Cousin Charles, Lady Margarita is living proof that the French Revolution was fought in vain. Worse, you and I are are fated to endure news accounts of her ladyship's first visit to Ascot, first drunken binge as an undergrad at St. Andrews, and of her first indiscreet vacation selfie on a yacht. But what can we mere peasants do? Wikpeidia has rules and our rules say that where there are this many sources, the article stays.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per E.M.Gregory's expressive comments. I understand why the notability concerns are raised. However, if she doesn't garner as much public attention as other (minor) royals now, she will later. She's only 14, and judging by this recent diff there is already enough. People of her position in society almost always become socialites to a certain level. If the article were deleted now, it would only be recreated later when there is significant media attention. That would surely not be worth it for someone to have to recreate the article completely, especially in spite of the ~507 avg. views the article receives daily — Iambic Pentameter (talk / contribs) 22:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The argument that she will get coverage in the future is a crystal ball argument. We base articles on the coverage that is given now, and that is currently inadequate to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No crystal ball needed. Think of her as analogous to a young actor who has gained press attention for playing small roles in a number of productions, and then had a featured role in one of the blockbuster productions of the decade (The Royal Wedding), which has gotten her ongoing attention for the several years now. If a young actor had this kind of press coverage, she would pass WP:BIO. We do have articles on children who played only one role Peter Ostrum, or appeared only in a single photo Sharbat Gula. (E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the British Royal Family has often been seen here as an exception to the rule that notability is not inherited. In this case, she is the only granddaughter of Princess Margaret, the iconic royal of the mid-20th century. If she were a run of the mill 137th in line to the throne, I'd understand the desire to delete. She has already gotten some media coverage as noted above. It is almost certain that she will inherit one or more titles and will secure considerable media coverage as she gets older. Bearian (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The claim that there are exceptions to the rule that notability is not inherited (see WP:NOTINHERITED) could be a controversial one. I don't see anything about this at WP:OUTCOMES. This claim could contain an element of pro-British pro-monarchist bias (see WP:BIAS). What titles is she likely to inherit? PatGallacher (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"Keep"'-She is notable as a minor royal who is relatively high up in the succession for the British throne. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 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. The only two arguments to keep fail to provide any policy-based reasons and are from users with very limited editing history. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Milano[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable rapper who achieved viral success which led him to touring nationally and working with other notable musicians ie. Rich The Kid and August Alsina.NotLazyAnymore (talk) 20:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Derrick Milano is a notable rapper and other notable artists tap him to feature on their projects and his releases are covered by major music publications.[1]Young Money (talk) 23:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Vibe article you linked to is four sentences long. Did I miss the rest of it, or are those four sentences intended to establish his "viral" notability on Wikipedia? Magnolia677 (talk) 23:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources consist of subject talking about himself; database listings (such as MTV.com); and sites that post videos with promotional text. It lacks independent, third party coverage that would convey notability. Arguments to keep based on the subjects collaborations are not backed up with significant coverage, apparently claiming notability by association. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Seresin[edit]

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

Article lacks WP:RS. I have tried to find something about this person on GNews but all I got were passing mentions. This suggests that WP:GNG is not met. Contested WP:Prod. Schwede66 19:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article contains ample reliable sources to establish a base notability. Not every cinematographer/film crew member will have a significant amount of sources laying around. Seresin is developing a substantial filmography that will likely only grow more with time. Nominating for deletion now I feel would be premature. Rusted AutoParts 19:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources? What we have is a primary source (his own website, which is of course not RS), an IMDb entry (which is particularly mentioned on the RS page), an advert (not RS either). That leaves us with the New York Film Academy source, which has at least some substance to it. It's got "blog" at the top of the page, but I admit that there are some things labelled as blog that I would consider reliable. I'm not sure where this one stands. It would surprise me if the item got "editorial oversight", but maybe they do that. It's a private school, so publishing this blog has possibly more of a promotional aspect than it being of journalistic nature. But in either case, that's the only source that may pass the reliable source test. So can you please explain, Rusted AutoParts, what you mean be "ample reliable sources"? Schwede66 17:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The landscape of information has been evolving, from written word to social media. I feel that Seresin's website can and should be used as it does contain information needed to establish a biography. It'll be used when people need information about the man in articles/sources that'll talk about him.
I stand firm by my premature stance. The article is barely a week and a half old, and still has time to gain additional information. Rusted AutoParts 06:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about your "premature stance", you seem to indicate that you yourself aren't convinced that he has gained general notability. When you say that his "filmography ... will likely only grow more with time", you are invoking what we call WP:CRYSTALBALL on Wikipedia. Notability is about the here and now, and not what might be at some point in the future. Schwede66 07:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty brazen assumption. I'm simply stating it's premature to say it's time to delete his article. Not me codedly stating "he's not notable". Me stating his filmography will grow is just me lamenting that he's a working cinematographer and will get more work. Rusted AutoParts 02:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. J947 03:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. At best, WP:TOOSOON. He's worked on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and World War Z, but until he picks up an Oscar or at least a nomination, he isn't there yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. And no, the subject's own web site is not a reliable source for establishing notability. No prejudice to recreation in the future when his developing filmography garners him the the coverage needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:54, 2 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  21:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Airware[edit]

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

Largely a business listing with only what would be advertised to clients including the fact it's focused with such specifics as company funding, support and activities and the sources mirror it by only being mere announcements and mentions; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone and searches simply found the mirrored ones like here. History shows no convincing signs other than the casual changes in a presumably manner of keeping it as an exact business listing. When we founded Wikipedia, one of our main policies was not allowing advertising and this here fits the exact criteria. In fact, even the current source adding couldn't satisfy what our policies need, see:

  • 1 is still too trivial, being at their business-specific section, and itself contains noticeable business quotes
  • 2 is itself a PR-award, which violates WP:CORPDEPTH which states such PR awards are unacceptable, regardless wherever published
  • 3 is still similar to the first one, which itself then contains a CV-esque of the company's own funding and financial history before finishing a few sentences later with the "Trademarked by Airware". which violates WP:CORPDEPTH once again
  • 4 is itself a business announcement, including focusing in a "New business"-esque with all the natural signs of PR
  • 5 is still a business published announcement
  • 6
  • 7 is a clearly labeled press release, since it formally states "Company gains new funding" which itself violates WP:CORPDEPTH (which itself is a simplest standard before WP:NOT is then applied)
  • The next two, 8 and 9, still violate WP:CORPDEPTH given they're PR publications which we've long labeled as unacceptable given their clear focus in PR and satisfying the company's own need for it, their articles will also then clearly state "Information by the company". Although these two may not, they still largely focus solely in the company's own quoted words, website-supported information and their financials and fundin
  • See also then my own executed search which found nothing but clear announcements and here's the analysis:
  • first 10 here all consist of either clearly labeled press releases, trade publications or republishing of it
  • next 10 is same (and I even found one of the PRs from above in there)
  • next 10 is same, along with a few majorly published ones here and there
  • next 10 is same
  • next 10 is same
  • next 10 is same
  • If we cannot even guarantee the substance our policies would need, there's nothing to suggest why settling with published and republished business announcements would benefit our encyclopedia. As it is, there's the clear history signs alone, take this SPA for example, which cared to focus with mentioning the company. SwisterTwister talk 19:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Jansen, Bart (July 23, 2015). "Airware navigates future of drones". USA Today. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Jansen, Bart (December 15, 2015). "Airware CEO is Small Business Innovator of the Year". USA Today. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Russon, Mary-Ann (September 12, 2014). "Drone Operating System: MIT Startup Airware and Nasa Transforming Hobby into Commercial Industry". International Business Times. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • "Drones CAN'T deliver goods ... oh. Air traffic control system backed by NASA, you say?". The Register. September 16, 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • Haggin, Patience (October 24, 2016). "Drone Startups Pivoting to Enterprise Services". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved February 9, 2017. (subscription required)
  • Gallagher, Sean (August 14, 2013). "Raspberry Fly? Airware's Linux and ARM developer platform for drones". Ars Technica. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
  • "Why Is America Losing the Commercial Drone Wars?". Washington Monthly.
  • These are the same sources as shown and analyzed above. I will note, however, something I had not mentioned above, which is the blatantly press release ones are casually placed whenever the company's capital quarter happened, which is beyond simply being coincidental when every single article shares the same PR consistency. To actually quote WP:CORPDEPTH: [Unacceptable sources are]: Simple announcements and statements, press releases, passing mentions, anything by or for the company and advertising or anything where the company talks about itself, wherever" and that fits the sources, therefore unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertorials and/or PR announcements abound which follow the same pattern: overview of drones, CEO's MIT background, amount of funding raised, quotes/interview from CEO. The sources mentioned above follow the same pattern. The "USA Today" articles are a profile of a company that entered their competition and a profile of the winner. Same pattern. Ditto for "The Register" and the WSJ article. The Washington Monthly article appears to be an attempt at lobbying to change the laws in the USA, complete with ample quotes and arguments from Jesse Kallman, Airware's head of business development. The Ars Technica article is a little difference as it discusses the product and a Raspberry Pi. Not a brilliant source but can be useful to indicate notability - just not enough on its own. -- HighKing++ 16:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  Topic appears to have emerged from the startup phase, even if just barely.  Topic has received significant attention in reliable sources that satisfy WP:CORP, and these sources are available in the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; coverage is shallow and PR-driven. Wikipedia is not an investment prospectus. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Making an entrance[edit]

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

Original research from 2006, which survived a 2007 AFD on the basis that someone was bound to give it "tender loving care' and make it encyclopedic. A listing of ways characters appear, such as "from the feet up" or "in silhouette first." I did not find reliable and independent secondary sources to support what is in the article, other than noticing that sometimes characters appear in these ways. They appear in lots of other ways, too, so who says these are the most important ways? Edison (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Purely original research. Not a single reference to mark any of it as notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Hesitant to support it in the current state, but really its biggest problem may be the title. In the spirit of meta:eventualism, I think it hasn't realized its potential value yet. I understand that might be a hard sell after not having improved measurably since the last AfD, but I'll have a look around to see if I can't dig up anything. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable; for example see Shakespeare's Stagecraft. AFD is not cleanup. Exit, stage left. Andrew D. (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rework. The topic is most certainly notable, but this Article needs to be organized a lot better. It also needs a References Section, and some sources to fill it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or kill off all the WP:OR. I agree with almost everything said above--it's only a question of how best to fix the obvious problem. I agree with AdventurousSquirrel that the title might be a major problem, and I agree with those above who say the subject has significance in terms of movie (famous film entrances, [8]), theater (noting Andrew Davidson's comment), interviews, teaching, psychology [9], etc. I just don't see anything in the article worth saving, except maybe the first few lines, which are unfortunately, unreferenced. The article is so bad and lacking of WP:RS, almost everything needs to go. I would be happy to see it resurrected if something more worthwhile with WP:RS is created, but what we have I can't support without at least some quality WP:RS to back it up. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article is wholly WP:OR. While I found it very interesting, I'm pretty sure OR is like a policy or something. Not even a guideline. A policy. Onel5969 TT me 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Show it the exit. All unsourced OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete--Well, we don't keep articles based on WP:OR.Winged Blades Godric 14:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this poor, unsourced stub is like Proust's actress, waiting offstage for her entrance like a children's moon. Is there any way a closing admin can userfy her? Bearian (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This debate has been open for almost a month. This amount of time is such that, rather than continuing to Relist it over and over again, it would probably be better to Close it as No Consensus and then Open another Nomination from scratch. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Mysterious El Willstro: Seems to me the consensus is to delete. No one thinks it is acceptable as is. I would support saving the history, if you or any other editor(s) has the will to revive it to the point where it is not all WP:OR. The question is: Can anything of the current article be saved as grounded in WP:RS as it is right now? If not, what is the point of keeping any of it or its history, even if it is ultimately notable? Someone could always try and recreate it later if they can show it is notable. --David Tornheim (talk) 10:02, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Becki Ronen[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:NTEMP. There is more coverage available under Becki Walenz, her married name. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sources entirely fail to meet notability standards. Being Miss something somestate is not enough to establish notability and the sources lack the depth to show she is notable otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue or Procedural close  Delete !votes have failed to establish the case (1) that a search for sources including sources in the article finds less significant coverage than an objective level that defines WP:GNG, (2) that there are no merge targets, and (3) that there are no redirect targets.  WP:Notability is not a policy, rather WP:Deletion policy; including ATD, DEL-REASON, and CONTENT; is the policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as, in this case, there's no signs of the substance we need, simply participating in an event is not an automatic factor of notability and the sources are only mere announcements and mentions for them; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone involved and the article shows no other signs of the needed significance. WP:NEXIST is not applicable here, because it's used when sources were otherwise shown and found, but none have been, and since the current ones are unconvincing, there's nothing else otherwise; next, WP:NTEMP is not applicable since it's used when subjects were in fact convincing, but this one isn't since it's simply mere participation. In fact, there's been no noted career achievements since then, so that's also self-explanatory. SwisterTwister talk 06:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are simply announcements including in local publications, that's not the significant coverage we need. SwisterTwister talk 18:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia in no way denigrates local sources as non-reliable. Reliable is the key, not wide-encompassing. The Wichita Eagle and The Topeka Capital-Journal both have Wikipedia articles, as you can see. NPR affiliates are obvious. Tapered (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a pseudo-biography filled with trivia. Nothing stands out about this contestant and such articles are routinely deleted. A redirect is unnecessary as the name is unlikely to have become a valid search term. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most winners of this pageant are not notable. This is one of them. The sources do not constitute more than press releases. Guy (Help!) 14:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decisive Keep There are several dedicated references from WP:RS, especially The Wichita Eagle, The Topeka Capital-Journal, and NPR affiliates. Whether her notability derives in part from a Beauty contest or not, dedicated pieces from reliable sources = notability = keep. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Dear Admins Please sift through this discussion carefully. Please note that the nomination is encompassed by one word, with no attempt to synch it with Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't get much better after that. None of the Deleters explain how their nominal citings of Wikipedia policy dovetail with the contents of the article. The use them like talismans: 'I mention this in connection with this article, so that means what I'm saying is so.' Other Deleters, in effect, say, 'I don't like this article, out with it.' There's a cultural condescension toward Beauty contests and their entrants at work here. Please don't take this as even a tacit endorsement of said contests. It's simply a plea for intellectual honesty in the matter of this article and Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I see as absent in much of the above verbiage. Tapered (talk) 05:11, 5 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. The article needs some sources quick, as the grandfather clause may be removed soon. (non-admin closure) J947 19:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Adkins[edit]

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

Apparently a minor actor that has received no coverage in reliable secondary sources and therefore fails Biographies of living persons and GNG Steve Quinn (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles of (former) child actors known for only 1-2 roles so why should we delete this article of an actor with multiple Movie and TV roles? --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Dakota Greek Life[edit]

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

Overcoverage; a merge is undesirable as there is already a terse embedded list at University of North Dakota#Greek life. VQuakr (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep There is no other source on the web that has a complete coverage of the greek life history at the University of North Dakota. There are numerous other pages for school and greek life. See: List of Fraternities and Sororities at the University of Minnesota Greenwine (talk) 03:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject is not notable to this depth and the matter is already covered. Article is unencylopedic. AusLondonder (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is almost totally unsourced. I don't see any way this could be considered encyclopedic. Colleges have fraternities. There's not much that can be said about frat life at one college that's not equally true about frat life at most other colleges. On top of that, there appears to be serious copyright issues; I see whole sentences lifted verbatim from other web sites. There's a possibility this could be re-framed as List of greek organizations at Univiersity of North Dakota. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rana P. Singh[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria under WP:PROF. Appears to be a resume posted by an affiliated researcher. Dunready (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Occult. The article's subject is found to not be notable enough for its own standalone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Occult science[edit]

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

Seems like a very broad subject, it might be able to grow into something, but I am not sure it can at this time. Might be better as a disambig. South Nashua (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think there are sufficient sources to establish as notable some coverage of the use of the form and/or methods of science in occult circles. This seems like the right place to put that article. Western esotericism and related articles are probably adequate to cover it for Western subjects specifically, and could subsume this article if they were our only concern, but there's also plenty of sources on the incorporation of scientific concepts in Eastern esotericism e.g. Onmyōdō. Provided the article sticks to discussion of the topic itself as much as possible, and doesn't digress into merely enumerating these different occult traditions, I think it's ultimately OK. Layzner (Talk) 18:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You might be right. I thought more about this and if I'm wrong, if it's possible to clean this up, I'll withdraw my nom. I don't have the expertise or confidence in this subject, otherwise I would have done that rather than beginning this discussion.However, I also think you're right in that this article can easily get a bit too crufty if it doesn't focus, that was my big concern. South Nashua (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  07:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The use of the term is intended to suggest that the occult is scientific, which makes it inherently WP:POV. Also, there is no reliably referenced content here; and any relevant content that comes up would be better placed in other articles, such as Western esotericism. -- 120.17.62.166 (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with the above that it suggests that the occult is scientifically valid, which is both WP:POV and very problematic without any attempt at a citation to back it up. Attempted to find a source that might offer an opportunity for expansion but couldn't find anything remotely reputable with ease. PriceDL (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not an attempt by a Wikipedian to legitimize occult ideas as scientific; this is a subject called "occult science". If it's unscientific, pseudoscientific, etc. (and it is) then we can say as much, but that's irrelevant to its notability. Rudolf Steiner and Helena Blavatsky have written extensively about this idea, and, as far as I know, not in very dissimilar ways. I'm not so sure the term is used in the same way consistently elsewhere, however, such that it's practical to have a stand-alone article. There have been plenty of attempts to reconcile science and the occult, and plenty of scientific concepts have historical connections to occult ideas, but the question is whether there is a distinct concept "occult science". I think that there is, but I don't feel confident weighing in in that way. If we're answering about whether there's "significant coverage" of something called "occult science", the answer is clearly yes, but it's not that simple. I also don't see that there's a whole lot of content worth hanging onto here. I mainly wanted to push back against the crux of the previous two !votes. Pinging Midnightblueowl, who may have some knowledge about this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm happy to accept that it may be notable, however I don't believe it should exist with its current text without sufficient citations. As I mentioned, I did try to find one and if I had been successful probably would have voted as a weak keep. If citations are not provided, the article should probably be wiped blank, in which case why keep it? PriceDL (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term "occult sciences" is one that has had significant usage within western esotericism and there will certainly be academic sources that discuss said usage. On that basis, there is grounds for this article to be kept. However, the article is currently in a shockingly bad state, so there is a case for deletion at this juncture with the proviso that it can be re-created in future when someone with the time and attention to use those academic sources can do so. On balance I'd probably go with a weak keep. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Midnightblueowl. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete by way of WP:TNT. I have no objection to a better article being written later but this is not that article. Orrrrrr possibly merge and redirect to a section in Western esotericism. If we get enough WP:RS we can always split it back out at a later date. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the term "occult science" has certainly been used, but it's been used by different people to mean different things. The book Occult Science by Rudolf Steiner is very different in its message from Theosophy, Religion and Occult Science by Henry Steel Olcott, for example. So "occult science" does not refer to a specific topic; it's just a phrase. In the case of this article it's not clear what uses of the phrase are supposed to be covered. What is clear is that there is no sourced content at all. -- 120.17.179.67 (talk) 01:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While that's true of those writers, modern scholarly sources written by historians (e.g. Hanegraaff, Newman, Grafton) tend to use the term in a not-uncontested but reasonably consistent way. Layzner (Talk) 02:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or alternatively move and redirect Occult#Science_and_the_occult and Rudolf Steiner). The article can be expanded. Two articles in Scientific American [11], [12] (I can't seem to read either). Also, use of the term by Rudolf Steiner as an entire piece (also [13]), so it may be part of the curriculum used in Waldorf Schools (See for example this article criticizing Anthroposophy complaining specifically:
He lectured profusely on topics such as reincarnation, hypnotism, occult science, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, mystery centers of the middle ages, astral bodies, gnomes as life forms, angels, karma, Christian mysticism, how to see spiritual beings, modern initiation, Atlantis, Lemuria, etc. Steiner's sermons, setting out his occult teachings, were recorded by his disciples and published in more than 350 volumes. [emphasis added]
--David Tornheim (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: That's fine with me as long as "occult science" is truly a subset of "occult" and not something significantly different. I don't know enough about either subject to be sure. Has anyone seen anything in the WP:RS to say definitively one way or another about the relationship between the two subjects? I don't think of Rudolf Steiner as believing in the paranormal which is part of the definition of the occult. He seems to be more interested in mysticism and spirituality. It might, in fact, make more sense to merge it with Steiner and Anthroposophy or whatever we have on the Waldorf school curriculum. But I am not clear if his school has a kind of monopoly on the term or whether there are various definitions for it. In that case possibly multiple merges and redirects are in order. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest this article as a starting point. Layzner (Talk) 01:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and leave redirect to Theosophy as this term is primarily part of that bundle of wax and is just the gussied up term they used to describe what they were up to. Jytdog (talk) 21:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. Hanegraaff is a theosophist. And no i am not going to get into a big debate with you over that. Jytdog (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Hanegraaff is a theosophist"? Since when? I'm not quite sure that this is accurate. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this oxymoron and leave redirected to theosophy, as above. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: Redirecting to Theosophy alone seems inappropriate given this article by Wouter Hanegraaff which does not mention theosophy or Rudolf Steiner at all. However, there is support to merge with occult which is acceptable to me. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and we have this [14], so maybe just re-write as a page about the academic study of the occult. As it does appear to exist in that sense.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 2 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) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajoo Engineers[edit]

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

Lacks sufficient independent coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Available sourcing consists of routine coverage, press releases, and directory entries. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Independent sources not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underunderground[edit]

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

I suspect that this is simply a hoax. In the best case, however, it's a little-known neologism that was used only in the context of Franklin's correspondence with Payne. Google has basically never heard of the term and also knows of nobody under the name "Thomas Bookerville". Pichpich (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 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. North America1000 23:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Royal McLog[edit]

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

Declined for speedy deletion. Renominating it for AfD. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Unambiguous advertising. No references in article and a search of Google News finds no references either. As per Talk page, article is an autobiography. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an article sourced to only facebook and youtube.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Should have tagged it A7 because there is no credible claim of significance. But since we're here, then regular delee for a complete lack of anything remotely resembling coverage in a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:23, 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. MBisanz talk 23:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dziffa Akua Ametam[edit]

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

Fails GNG. A thorough search for RS fails to uncover any substantial and sustained coverage other than the non-RS mentions in article. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW and withdrawal by OP. — JFG talk 08:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2020[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Aside from when the election will take place and eligibility bits, this article is full of unconfirmed speculation; nobody has even officially announced they'll be running for office that year, and that won't happen until at least 2018. There's nothing truly solid to work with at the moment and there won't be for another year at earliest. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This was snow kept in 2015. Why would we delete it now, in 2017? Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics." There's not much to say about it yet but a stub article is fine to have since we know that it will happen (barring apocalypse). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I can agree on certain aspects of Snuggums' nomination (e.g. candidates), this article can certainly stand alone and so not WP:TOOSOON. It is an event that will definitely happen. Per Moboshgu, if we were to use this tactic with every "too soon" articles, we wouldn't have articles like 2018 FIFA World Cup, 2018 Winter Olympics, 2020 Summer Olympics, 2022 Winter Olympics, 2022 FIFA World Cup, 2024 Summer Olympics, 2018 United States elections, United States elections, 2020 (and its senate, house and congress articles as well) and so forth. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while it is a legitimate issue to raise concerns about some of the speculative content of the article, I think there is clear precedent for retaining it. Most articles on national elections have a next election article even if that is likely to be four or five years hence ( eg Next Scottish Parliament election is scheduled to be in 2021). There has already been some polling done and some hypothetical discussion by serious commentators. As argued above it does not breach WP:TOOSOON. Dunarc (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's already plenty of sources for several candidates, and the incumbent president is actively running for re-election. Earthscent (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with everything you guys have said so far. PiratePablo (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing while WP:LASTTIME and WP:OTHERSTUFF aren't good points as noted on WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, I hadn't noticed how WP:CRYSTAL said this was actually fine to have. Regardless, the speculative content is a major issue and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can be addressed on the talk page. I agree that there should be some guidelines on how and when we should add candidates. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Donald Trump has already held his first campaign event for the 2020 election. The speculative candidate section removal has already been proposed. Please discuss at the talk page. Prcc27❄ (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding WP:LASTTIME, you were making a WP:TOOSOON argument that wasn't found to have merit 16 months ago, so obviously it would be an even weaker argument now. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TOOSOON. It's too early to say if the US will (a) survive or (b) remain a democracy under Trump. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Per above. I also note that Clarityfiend should also keep his delusional fulminations off Wikipedia. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, don't you recognize humor when you see it? Hint: that's what the small font means. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a feeling you might have been kidding, but you probably should've put a strike through your text to further emphasize that it wasn't meant to be taken seriously in the deletion process. No harm done, though :) --Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:52, 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. Calling this WP:SOFTDELETE due to the limited discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIT Schools of Management[edit]

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

There is no evidence this exists as am organization or a group. As such it fails WP:GNG. As a list we already have List of MBA schools in India. Muhandes (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Any useful, verifiable information from this article could be included in Indian Institutes of Technology or in the article for the individual institute. The institutes are notable, but schools or departments within those institutes are not notable, and neither is this list. Jack N. Stock (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Bridwell[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines per WP:AUTHOR. Works cited (besides a few articles in minor magazines) are a self-published magazine and a self-published novel. Dunready (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the coverage is the local news coverage of an aspiring writer that does not show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above I agree its not noteworthy enough. Only local news about aspiring writer. I also see that the user that created the page has only had edits regarding this page. It seems like they have a connection to person in article. They also tried to remove the template for this discussion. Reb1981 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:09, 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) 19:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Aqeeq Baba[edit]

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

Declined a test-page speedy, but a good faith search is not showing independent, reliable sources for notability. Normally I'd just speedy this, but given that he lived almost 700 years ago and sources may not be in English, I think more eyes are needed on this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete no main content and no references - user can add to existing draft User:Hammadsaeed/sandbox and proceed with article via AfC until its more suitable. KylieTastic (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Now has both so removing vote as I don't have time to review now KylieTastic (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject isn't notable. All that I found about the subject online are Pakistani blogs, so this could be a hoax for all I know. If there are sources, this content should be developed at Wali before being spun out to a standalone article. I'd also note that the talk page is filled with suspicious SPAs I'm going to take to SPI momentarily, so I expect that they'd show up here, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there's actual content to begin with. A draft already exists as KylieTastic mentioned, so I'm not feeling sorry for deleting-but-not-really-deleting this page. Besides, most South Asian saints tend to have no more than a very local "fame", so I would not be surprised if notability through independent sources can not be demonstrated. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC) Pending !vote after Kashmiri's findings below, although I am still unsure if it would not be better to just blow it up and start over. Having browsed through several images, the spelling seems to be variable and not only due to transliteration conventions: the Arabic-script name in this image is حضرت سيد شاه يقيق بابا i.e. Ḥaḍrat Syed Shāh Yaqīq Bābā, while this image speaks of حضرت سيد شاه عقيق i.e. Ḥaḍrat Syed Shāh ‘Aqīq (using scientific romanisation here). I know for one that hadrat and syed are honorific titles, and I thought the same goes for baba, thus the essence of his name appears to be Shāh ‘Aqīq/Yaqīq (or Shah Aqeeq/Yaqeeq if following common South Asian transliteration). Searching for the latter simpler names brought up a few snippets, such as "URS OF SHAH YAQIQ, at Thatta, the historic town of Sind located about 80 kilometers from Karachi on the National Highway." and a catalogue entry saying "Hagiography of Shahu Yaqiq Bukhari, 1431?- 1451?, a celebrated Muslim saint from Sind, Pakistan" (which indicates that there is a source with significant coverage). --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, but unopposed to re-creation by somebody able to write in an encyclopedic and non-hagiographic (read: peacocky) way. Extensive sockpuppetry has been confirmed, so I feel uncomfortable keeping this page and so, in a way, condoning the sockpuppeteer's actions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Even though I reported the creator of this article at SPI and am trying to stop his spamming of Wikipedia, there is no doubt that a mausoleum (dargah) of such a person exists in Uch Sharif, Pakistan where it is a local centre of pilgrimage. Google image search for "Dargah Shah Aqeeq" returns a handful of photographs from various sources while Geo TV, one of the largest TV channels in Pakistan, aired a documentary on the place in 2013 [15]. As to the historical person of Shah Aqeeq Baba, most what is in the article is based on local legends, so perhaps some serious trimming and tagging is needed, but hey, with good copyediting Wikipedia handles such stuff pretty nicely. The only doubt I have is whether not to move this article to Shah Aqeeq mausoleum, describing the place based on the Geo TV material, and keep is under WP:NGEO. The person of Shah Aqeeq could be then presented in the context of the place. — kashmiri TALK 15:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak deleteWeak keep - I agree that Shah Aqeeq Baba is not a hoax (I don't know how much of his story is fictional, but fiction!=hoax). However, the Geo TV report and the link in the article to a page on the rightfulreligion blog is talking about a shrine in the town of Shah Aqeeq in Thatta District in Sindh (south Pakistan, not far from Karachi). Uch Sharif, where the individual is from, is in the Punjab (north-east Pakistan, not far from Multan). I skipped around, but the Geo TV report didn't seem to talk much about the person. Given that no page for the town of Shah Aqeeq exists, I think such an article should be created as a new article (I don't think the history or content of this article would be valuable in such an article). My feeling is that the mausoleum would go as a section in a page on the village. I'm not sure if Shah Aqeeq Baba is a useful redirect to this page; the character, Shah Aqeeq Baba, is more closely associated with Uch (for instance, the article mentions Jalaluddin Surkh-Posh Bukhari), and a redirect to a town named after him in Sindh seems odd, but maybe I'm wrong. All that said, I would !vote keep to an article about this individual if there were a reliable source about him (or even if the Geo TV article does talk in some depth about him [if so, can you give the time in the show that it occurs in the citation]), but I can't find one. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the first link provided by HyperGaruda, "Pakistan tourism directory, '86", my understanding is that the word "Urs" refers to a celebration of the anniversary of death, which means that while the first link you've given refers in part to the town of Shah Aqeeq, it is a calendar of events giving the date of a holiday in honor of the person. It is hard to be sure when using snippets, but that suggests evidence that the individual is notable (and certainly the physical artifact suggests notability, as Kashmiri says).
Regarding the second link, "Accessions List, South Asia, Volume 7, Issues 1-6", I see more of the snippet at the link [16], telling me that the book seems to have been written by Habibu Sindhu (born in 1957), published in 1986 by Soshal Vailfe'ar Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa in Cuhar Jamali (the society: Anjuman-i-Ghulaman-i-Mustafa [also Anjuman-e-Ghulaman-e-Mustafa] is not clearly unreliable, I'm not sure how Wikipedia would handle it though).
Further, the page at righfulreligion has been expanded, and new sources have been added there, particularly this one (which is really about the town and shrine) from BBC News Urdu: [17]. I have tried to develop the article using these sources. There have also been a number of video news reports linked below and at the rightfulreligion blog about the town and shrine, but these do not seem to add anything more about Shah Aqeeb the individual. I continue to think it would be fine to create a page about the town with a section about the shrine.
When Hammadsaeed's block expires, perhaps they will be able to comment on the source of the rest of the material (although it was recommended in their block they keep their editing on this page to a minimum). In the meantime, I changing my vote weak keep for a limited article about the individual (which can be expanded if sourced) including only the sourced material - I think the stuff taged c-n can/should be removed. I think having an independent biography (any biography written hundreds of years after an individual's death is at least somewhat independent, after all), a shrine, and a holiday recognized at the national level is enough for WP:ANYBIO #2. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Shah Aqeeq Baba is an Asian Sufi Saint. Many people all around the world visit his shrine for spiritual peace and they search for shah Aqeeq but they could'nt find any thing on Wikipedia,so I think this page shouldn't delete I vote to this page. You can see these link for evidence [18] WP:NGEO hammadsaeed TALK 8:28 am, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Creator may be attempting to canvass, per my here.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Add sock puppetry to that. We are still awaiting a CU for confirmation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what are you saying?? Hammadsaeed (talk)
     Comment:Hammadsaeed Please read WP:SOCK, and understand that using multiple accounts to try and sway consensus is strictly prohibited. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK sorry User:Boomer Vial but what can I do I just want to save this page because this page is necessary for Pakistanis and Asians how I can I explain.......But I just want to save my page Hammadsaeed TALK 11:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Same canvassing attempts here: [19]. — kashmiri TALK 15:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per HyperGaruda. Blow it up, and start it up after the sockpuppet editor is blocked. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 06:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per the above comment and HyperGaruda. I agree that it is probably best to blow this up and start completely from scratch with the interference with from the sockpuppet editor. This is certainly one of the more interesting AfDs that I have run across since starting Wikipedia. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- - I think You all are European or American so that's why you don't have any concern about our Sufi Saints.But in Pakistan it has so much value.And stop spoiling my page edits without any information.I note that you change the edits of my page without information I research on Shah Aqeeq Baba about 2 years till now. I humble request to you all that I want this page because His Annual Death Anniversary is celebrated and a holiday recognized at the national level is enough for WP:ANYBIO and above evidences are enough I think and Urs of Shah Aqeeq Baba is held on 5th March 2017 means next month so I want this page before 5th March sir it's a humble request.and It's not Hoax. Hammadsaeed TALK 08:12, 01 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Not much chance of keeping a stable article until after the socks are blocked. He's moved on to vandalizing user pages of other involved editors now.PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am curious, is there a policy about deleting pages because they are unstable or even possibly as a way of expressing distaste at the actions of the pages creator? For what it is worth, I still !vote weak keep and have been tagging/removing uncited material from the page once or twice a day for the last few days. In any case, while I'm not sure Hammadsaeed fully understands WP:OR and WP:RS, I do think that his continued efforts to add uncited material to the page could now be considered vandalism. Perhaps this page should have some protection, is that something that should go through AIV, or is there an administrator watching this page willing to protect the article at least until the AfD is over. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is the WP:G5 policy, which to me seems to have a punitive aim. -HyperGaruda (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE -- In light of the confirmed case of extensive sockpuppetry and persistent disruption, I have semi-protected the article for 3 days (allowing editing by confirmed accounts only) and have required pending changes review for a further 3 months thereafter. — CactusWriter (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- sami  talk 13:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC) In case the outcome is delete, the title should not be banned for recreation by an uninvolved editor(s) per WP:BIAS.  sami  talk 12:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete via G5. THis was a direct violation of a block by a sockpuppet. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G5 does not apply directly to this page, since it was created before the creator started violating sockpuppetry rules and the resulting block. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:53, 2 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chauhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM: Copy of recently deleted article and no better sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musa Abdul-Aleem[edit]

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

Abdul-Aleem is a basketball player who does not appear to meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players and does not pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Abbas[edit]

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

Abbas appeared in a song contest, where he came no where near winning. He has done some touring, but does not seem to meet any inclusion criteria for musicians. The article has been marked as needing additional sources to show notability since December 2012. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eiko Shimamiya[edit]

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

Sourced to a music school's webpage where she is apparently a teacher, a blog, her Twitter, the webpage of her production group, and Anime New Network. WP:BEFORE turns up other blogs, music lyrics and download sites, and social media. No WP:RS coverage. Does not pass WP:GNG. Claimed to have had 1 song reach #39 in Oricon weekly, which is not enough to justify on WP:NMUSIC grounds. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable musician, judging by the lack of reliable sources. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Mariana Islands earthquake[edit]

2007 Mariana Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:

  • Low intensity – IV (Light)
  • No injuries or deaths
  • Minimal coverage from the scientific community (not finding any dedicated papers)
  • Not listed on the NGDC's significant earthquake database
  • Fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT
  • No lasting effects
  • No depth of coverage

There are destructive events in Guam, and we do have one article, but this one doesn't quite make the cut. It also does not qualify to be on the list so redirecting is not an option. The USGS entry for the event tells us that it happened and that the intensity was IV (Light) but nothing more. This was a felt event only:

Dawnseeker2000 16:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - completely unremarkable event. WikiProject Earthquakes making the right call.Glendoremus (talk) 04:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 2 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Rotan[edit]

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

Not enough sources to pas GNG and no showing of pasing any of the notability requirements for musicians. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 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 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage seems to be either passing references (Such as [20]) or brief coverage in context of the TV program [21]. Quite a few of the references are either unreliable (such as ImDb) or videos of the show such as [22] or tabloidy very brief q&a such as [23],[24] (which are not useful for GNG). More importantly, the only somewhat substantial content [25] is in Romerikes Blad, which is a local paper (and so are most of the other sources). I am also unable to verify any other claim which could help satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. As of now, a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:38, 2 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) 19:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Acorn[edit]

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

Acorn lacks the coverage to pas the general notability guidlines. No clear passing of the music guidelines either John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 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 09:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I managed to find only 1 source which has a brief writeup about the subject. But nothing substantial. Apart from this, there seems to be literally no coverage even if I searching using both the names. The article on the Russian Wikipedia is badly sourced as well, which doesn't inspire confidence in me. As this is a BLP, I would say it is prudent to delete it and let it be recreated if someone can bring sources in the future. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 20:45, 2 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. apparent consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intertrust Technologies Corporation[edit]

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

Article was earlier speedy deleted after a normal AfD procedure (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intertrust Technologies Corporation. I am not convinced that the present moved-back-without-WP:REFUND-request article is neutral in style and tone. So I request the opinions of others. The Banner talk 19:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep after investing much effort to save it by adding independent sources and neutral tone. It would help if the nominator would elaborate which side they think the article errs: is it too promotional of the company, or does mentioning a term like "patent troll", all the losses, and staff reductions make it too much of a complaint? As indicated in the talk page, the current incarnation of the article does not have any of the usual buzzwords and acronyms associated with promotional technology articles. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Independent sources? You have used a press release nine times.
    • And that is why I asked the opinion of others about this article. The Banner talk 21:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases can be used as sources, as long as the article paraphrases into neutral language. The use of independent sources is needed only to determine the notability of the subject. I tried to be clear about which were primary sources instead of trying to hide them. We can debate which of the other 29 non-press-release sources are truly independent. I would think for example Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, might be independent. W Nowicki (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Independent sources are better, conforn WP:RS. To me, using press releases signals lack of independent sources about the subject. The Banner talk 09:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are few articles (or mentions) about both InterTrust and Electronic Publishing Resources in InfoWorld and PC Mag magazines (I may provide direct links, but search via google books is easy). Sources like Forbes often have rather permissive publishing policy, big name doesn´t mean good source - must be judged case by case. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. W Nowicki (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising sourced by mirrored advertising, which is violating our main policies alone, wherever published or whatever significance from other named people. SwisterTwister talk 23:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  A most interesting read for a dry topic, digital rights management.  This is a longstanding Silicon valley enterprise, and I loved the idea of the InfoWorld source from 1985.  I don't necessarily know how to interpret the results at Google scholar, but there are a lot of them.  Only complaint is I'd like to see citations on all of the BLPs in the infobox.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- a storied company, having gone through IPO etc and per improvements by W Nowicki. Article is not currently promotional in tone and is reasonably sourced. Separately, I've substantially reduced material cited to press releases: diff. I don't see a reason to delete. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:57, 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:G5 NeilN talk to me 17:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Modishians (Hollywood)[edit]

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

Recently created, unreferenced article that fails to credibly establish notability. Unable to find information on this work at imdb or even via a google search. Possible hoax AussieLegend (✉) 15:32, 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. North America1000 22:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kranti Pratap Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Sources are solely prmary sources [26], Facebook [27], blogs [28], zines [29], and fanpages [30]. No inherent notability; WP:BEFORE searches in Googlenews [31], [32], and GBooks [33] establish no notability from third party, independent sources, so failing WP:GNG. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 13:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baymam-Bet[edit]

Baymam-Bet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was redirected to Kosh-Eter, and that redirect subsequently nominated at RfD. The discussion did not reach agreement on whether this populated place verifiably exists, based on differing opinions about the reliability and appropriate weight to be given to sources, but did reach consensus that if it exists it should have an article. user:Markussep's post in that discussion is worth quoting here:

The first version of this article was only based on this website. There is no mention of a place called Baymam-Bet in the 2009 population census (if it existed, it would have been on page 220, Uzgen district, Salamaliksky a.o.), and there is no populated place with this or a similar name near the given location on this detailed map.

Tavix commented to the effect that this apparently formerly appeared on Google Maps, which they believe to be reliable, and so it may be a former populated place or formerly recognised name. BDD implies that the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency regard this as an existing place, and that they are a reliable source.

I have closed the RfD discussion as "restore article and send to AfD" as this is the venue most competent to decide the issues about whether the article should exist or not. As such this is a procedural nomination and I am neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources are found that this place exists. All we have so far is a GNS entry, whose coordinates point to a barren-looking place on the slope of a mountain. The fact that it previously featured on google maps is much more likely to indicate an error that has been fixed, rather than a place that existed until recently (otherwise, it would at least appear on the 1980s topographic map linked above). I've tried a google search for what I reckon are the possible Cyrillic spelling variants (Баймамбет, Баймам бет, Байман бет, Байманбет), but the only relevant thing to come up was a place called Baymanbet in a different part of the world [35]. – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with misspelling unless it can be proven the place exists. Simply redirecting to "nearest village" does not help our cause much, if the original place does not exist and therefore there is no "nearest village"... Other places should be likewise deleted but can await the outcome here. — Iadmc♫talk  21:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A requested move should be initiated as well. (non-admin closure) J947 18:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Max Spiers[edit]

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

So there appears to be a few problems with this article and they are:

  • WP:GNG is not met. Firstly, there is no assertion of notability. The key points of this article seem to merely state this person was a conspiracy theorist, which I would not consider makes a person notable on its own. There is coverage but not significant coverage of the topic.
  • WP:NOTNEWS Wikipedia is not news. Not only has a claim of significance not been made but there are no references other than media based ones.
  • Tabloid coverage alone does not substantiate the definition of significant coverage.
  • This is a death which is currently under investigation for criminal wrongdoing. The cause of death is undetermined and this article puts WP:UNDUE weight on the implied correlation between him being a conspiracy theorist and his death.
→ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [Self-Rescind of nomination by nominator.][reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 12:27, 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) 12:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think keep. It may be that his death has made him more significant, but if we delete this, we will probably have to regenerate it soon. J S Ayer (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete or WP:Userify or Rename to Death of (after rewrite). (Remove the speedy as clearly controversial), at risk of tearing it down before it's built, but a mysterious death does not a notable topic make, so no assertion of notability. Express and Metro aren't really the quality of reporting needed to build a bio on such an murky conspiracy based topic where there's competing issues mental health vs conspiracy theories (BBC etc sources are but the notability is from the death). May be just a little WP:TOOSOON for some encyclopaedic perspective on his death which may need deeper research provided by books. Any such medical aspects need a higher level of sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Currently it's WP:NOTNEWS. Widefox; talk 15:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wiki-Coffee, I've contested the speedy, this needs to be discussed here as clearly controversial, so speedy A7 doesn't apply. Please revert yourself. Widefox; talk 09:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Widefox: Hey, I commented on your talk page about the adding of speedy :). Furthermore, The criterion for that speedy deletion tag is that the subject is “unremarkable.” I am not so sure if controversy equates to making something remarkable or not. I have no real views about this matter either way. While I could be persuaded his death might be cause for some sort of input into Wikipedia about it there is nothing indicating the subject is remarkable. The media picks up on people’s deaths all the time and I wouldn’t think this automatically makes one remarkable, notable or significant. I am also very hesitant to include content on Wikipedia that is solely based on tabloid or news articles. In the absence of any academic material on the subject matter it brings to issue the academic integrity of the content. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The issue I have with the BBC video source is that it's typical BBC3-like light magazine coverage, e.g. [36] with every sentence including the title having question marks, it's at the lower casual end of their coverage and I would argue not a great source per WP:NEWSORG Human interest reporting. which is way short of that needed for MEDRS, or basing a whole bio. Widefox; talk 10:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well-known figure in the UFO conspiracy world, as described by multiple reliable sources given in the article: the BBC, the Guardian and the Telegraph are top-echelon reliable sources. The coverage goes well beyond just reporting his death, including a ten minute BBC mini-documentary that covers his life in considerable detail. Failing meeting those notability criteria, I suggest Death of Max Spiers as another possible title for this article, as his death most certainly meets the GNG. -- The Anome (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Anome: I would be prepared to rescind my nomination for deletion if sources that are not tabloid news outlets could be identified which specifically support the subject of this articles notability. As it stands however, merely being reported about by the tabloid press is hardly enough to establish notability; With regards to the thing you have mentioned about him being well known in the conspiracy community, this has not been established by any non-tabloid sources. The academic integrity of this article is nil as there is not a single academic source and as an encyclopaedia, WP:NOTNEWS it doesn’t seem to me it should be filled with content simply because tabloids reported on it. Many people are in short-films on the BBC about an array of different issues (council tax complainers, EU Leave voters remain voters etc.) but that alone would be a very thin thing to base notability on. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 16:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Anome: Furthermore, even if you are to consider the tabloids are a primary source to validate a thin argument for notability there are no secondary sources which are non-tabloid which support it. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wiki-Coffee: Neither the Guardian nor the Telegraph are tabloids. Both are widely regarded as newspapers of record, with long histories of responsible fact-checking. The BBC's investigative journalism is also highly regarded. -- The Anome (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject's notability seems linked to the purportedly mysterious nature of his death and conspiracy theories spawned as a result. I wonder if that death does not fall under WP:BIO1E. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable UFOlogist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename as Death of Max Spiers. His death is notable, but his life was not so much. bogdan (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you reason how it's notable? Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC source isn't that reliable per guideline (see my comment above). Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think that perhaps that I’ve quoted too many policies without legitimising my arguments for why this article should be deleted, so I apologize for that.

I’d think that objectively speaking we should look at this matter as what qualifies for encyclopaedic content. In this case the subject of this article became noticed by the news for one event, that is his death, but otherwise he would be non-notable private individual. The assertion of credibility is that he was a “well known conspiracy theorist” but there is no academic evidence to suggest that he is a noteworthy conspiracy theorist. The other argument I would raise is that the focus of the sources is around the events surrounding his death and not the person in of itself. But even with this considered to say that a death specifically of this person is notable is at best a shallow assertion. There is the issue of UNDUE weight being placed onto the notion that him being a conspiracy theorist is linked to his death despite sources indicating otherwise. The fact is this person is not a notable conspiracy theorist in respect of academic sources or even retrospectively based on tabloid sources. His death could be notable by the standard of primary sources however, is not asserted by non-tabloid secondary sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and should not be for documenting news articles. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 09:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iantresman Except the BBC source isn't that reliable per my comment above. WP:NOTNEWS is also an issue. Widefox; talk 16:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, if the BBC source was the only source. But we have have several broadsheets who seem to find the subject matter notable. In my opinion, that satisfy the notability criteria, and I am fine if it falls short of other editor's standards. --Iantresman (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently this is a magnet for poor sources with speculative titles (Express, DailyMail, Metro "Who killed conspiracy theorist Max Spiers? Here's the top theories"). Clearly WP:NOT. Separating assertions of notability 1. Reporting on the inquest (Telegraph etc) is WP:PRIMARYNEWS (i.e. we don't count primaries for notability, and the BBC source is investigative so per PRIMARYNEWS "Investigative reports" may be strictly called a primary source), 2. his bio is clearly not notable 3. but his death may be (but it's WP:TOOSOON to know if it avoids WP:BIO1E "major role in a minor event"). The interplay between these aspects of the bio is tabloid fodder (speculation in sources) which aren't a good mix for a bio (WP:SYN/WP:OR/WP:CRYSTALL here), but IMHO are nothing to do with subjective judgements but a conflation of the assertions of notability. Widefox; talk 02:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per arguments above. - hahnchen 20:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: At least temporarily. Admittedly, I had never heard of the man until his death, the death in combination with the investigations means that this may be notable, even if notability is not yet firmly established. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is not yet firmly established, which I agree with, doesn't that mean the strongest argument for keeping is actually WP:ATA#CRYSTAL i.e. one to avoid? and as WP:NOTTEMPORARY shouldn't we just say it's not notable now? Widefox; talk 02:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to me that there's a paradox at play here - I agree with those who say that this person doesn't fulfil the requirements for being included on Wikipedia; on the other hand, IF he is removed, that would automatically fit in with those people who claim there are conspiracies out there - including a conspiracy to hide the news. Then there would be a need for an article about the "controversy" of removing this article, which would need to be explained by re-instating this article. In other words, it's not a topic for Wikipedia - but it very well could end up being one IF the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.25.244 (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No paradox - if deleted then this AfD remains as a record of the arguments, including that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Widefox; talk 01:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He is gaining increased interest for his work and media attention for his death. The story is interesting and I'm sure as the investigation into his death develops, there will be more information to add to the article. 188.39.152.34 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INTERESTING. Widefox; talk 13:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG. coverage and sources are good.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BabbaQ Daily Mail is not good per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_220#Daily_Mail_RfC generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles .. . Widefox; talk 09:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:FRINGE dominates the majority of this article (currently) - 1. his beliefs, 2. theories of others about his death. This is an NPOV / weight problem. Widefox; talk 11:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Widefox: It is harder than I thought to get this thing objective lol. I am trying if you could give me a copyedit I would appreciate it. Lots of the news articles are puffery trying to get it down to the most objective ones. →ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Changed my !vote. Quick copyedit done. Balance is better, but without facts of death (inquest) this is built on OR that it's psychosis (drug induced). That caveat aside, noms withdrawn so nothing to see here. Widefox; talk 12:09, 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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esico of Ballenstedt[edit]

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

Content is not verifiable. Ref - WP:BURDEN
TopCipher 11:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google books results suggests this is based on entries in Encyclopedia Brittanica and seems to give more results when spelled Esiko and when the German or French prepositions, von or de are used. Based on those results, I think the subject meets GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded this page substantially over tha past day or so, largely based on Harz-Zeitschrift (2012) a historical journal about the Harz region. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy I'm not sold that the subject is notable. I'd like the closing admin to put this on my userspace for further research and maybe rehab. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Smmurphy has done the work. Srnec (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject clearly notable historical figure. Agathoclea (talk) 09:47, 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. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neo Universe (EXEcutional)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic is about a fictional game within a comic/manga series. Topic has no coverage from reliable secondary sources. Article is composed of trivia and original research. The1337gamer (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely trivial. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see any notability for this subject, and it doesn't help that the article is written almost completely from an in-universe perspective.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 2 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Di Scala[edit]

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

Non-notable musician per music notability guidelines - TheMagnificentist 10:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I also note that most of the material is completely unsourced, which several of the key points that might show notability are from local, Liverpool, media. Liverpool has not been connected to the rest of the world as it was in the 1950s when The Beatles were forming. I also note that we usually delete BLPs about DJs and music producers, because they are so common, such as this subject. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but this is a mess. Bearian (talk) 02:51, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Govind[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC: There is no significant coverage in reliable sources to support notability except this. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yousri Belgaroui[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 10:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable kick boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is ranked the #4 middleweight kickboxer in the world by GLORY. GLORY rankings = UFC rankings in MMA. Franco s (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Glory and UFC are non-independent rankings - and because of that excluded from WP:KICK and WP:NMMA, respectively.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't meet requirements. Glory rankings are basically meaningless.ShadessKB (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails to meet the notability criteria for kickboxers. He is not ranked by either liverkick or combatpress. His ranking in a specific promotion (Glory, in this case) is irrelevant. Papaursa (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable kick boxer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venator FC[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA organization. References only indicate that certain fighters fought for them in the past. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FRVR (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daylighter[edit]

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

Delete. Unsourced WP:DICDEF of a neologism, attested only in social networking and/or user-generated sources and not in any conventional reliable source literary or film criticism. While it's true that some recent writers of vampire literature have been trying to change things up from the traditional conventions by writing vampires who don't have to avoid sunlight, it's not Wikipedia's job to help propagate user-created neologisms for that -- our role here is to wait until critics analyze this as a thing, and cite their work on it to support an article. (By comparison, zombie fiction has also been evolving from traditional zombies toward fast-running musclehulk zombies and/or zombies who retain normal human cognitive function. But we don't have standalone articles about neologistic new terms for those new types of zombies -- we just discuss that evolution in the main article on zombie itself.) Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:45, 2 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Arts and Sciences of Epirus[edit]

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

Lacks notability. This is a vehicle for user:Harrygouvas to promote himself (like all his contributions to en.WP, and el.WP), and to publish his supposedly important "historical" and "scientific" research, that otherwise would have remained in the drawer (see this page; even the string "MUSEUMOFARTSANDSCIENCESOFEPIRUSΜΟΥΣΕΙΟΤΕΧΝΩΝΚΑΙΕΠΙΣΤΗΜΩΝΗΠΕΙΡΟΥ" of the url confirms how H.Gouvas is eager to be connected to an institution, since he lacks of a realy important affiliation as a scientist; -he is just practicing medicine). As I had already noted elsewhere, Harry Gouvas' so-called "Museum" is a no-museum, no-foundation, no-institution, it is not certified by the Greek Ministry of Cultrure, as the Greek law requires for (real) museums. It does not house important collections of any kind (Gouvas himself has admitted that he failed to gain for his "collection" an official status by the Greek authorities), but "exhibits" like this. In general, the exhibits are replicas and copies of originals of poor or doubius qualitity. There are no published catalogues of the "museum" collections, or any other similar publication, like books or pamphlets for general readers. References to the collections of the "museum" by reliable sources cannot be found; only those H.Gouvas uploads on the net, usually throught forums and local friendly media. There is nothing notable about this "museum". On the abovementioned grounds the article has been deleted from the Greek Wikipedia, as well. ——Chalk19 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. –—Chalk19 (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A non-government recognized museum whose "most notable exhibits" includes a "Big Collection of Shells and Corals"? Fails GNG. Clarityfiend (talk)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Nothing notable here.Glendoremus (talk) 04:35, 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. North America1000 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipti Dhotre[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: I can't find anything in reliable sources to support/verify her role in any film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Eric Young (wrestler) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Justice Brotherhood[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 07:56, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 07:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not notable, a foot note in the career of all three wrestlers.  MPJ-DK  13:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To Eric Young (wrestler) - that's where it was from 2008 until earlier this month.LM2000 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per LM2000. Does no harm there and it was stable. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aarti Rana[edit]

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

No significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details to support WP:GNG and I also can't see if she has played a major role in any of the television shows listed in the article so fails WP:NACTOR as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Soni[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG no significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 08:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Art Less[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable web series. All I could find online are series profiles on sites like IMDb, promotional material, or blogs by people who worked on the series. I found a few reviews but they appear to be self-published or otherwise are not by professional reviewers. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had similar results when looking for sources. There just isn't anything out there. I'd say that this could be speedied via A7 since it's a non-notable web series, but an AfD would help prevent future recreation until if/when it passes notability guidelines. It exists, but existing does not give something notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources in article (and unfound during search) do not establish notability.104.163.140.193 (talk) 23:15, 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. Too soon, will be notable in the future, but insufficient reliable information available now to craft a decent article. Fenix down (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 FIFA U-20 World Cup[edit]

2021 FIFA U-20 World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Too far into the future, the hosts have not even been selected (and they haven't for the 2019 edition either). So there really is nothing to write about. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. GiantSnowman 13:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As an obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. While the tournament will obviously be notable at some point, there just isn't anything to say about it yet. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no details of this tournament available yet. WP:TOOSOON until FIFA provides any concrete information. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per this discussion and WP:TOOSOON, article can be created when article draws nearer and coverage becomes more reliable. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:44, 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. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Persaud[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with a bit of an advertorial lean ("who loves to travel"?), of a filmmaker and photographer with no strong evidence of passing WP:CREATIVE for either endeavour. Her debut film "is now in post-production (release date unknown)" — but that text has been in the article unchanged since 2007, which means either the film never came out at all or it did and nobody noticed. And the closest thing to an actual claim of notability here is winning the Best Pitch (i.e. best idea for a film that doesn't exist yet) award at a film festival for the very same film. And for referencing, all we have here is primary sources and dead links. I would frankly have speedied this if the date stamp on the article creation wasn't a decade old. Bearcat (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:38, 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 — CactusWriter (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Que[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an actor and musician, with no strong claim to passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. His television and film parts have been entirely bit parts (mostly as unnamed characters to boot), the introduction posits his most notable role as a community theatre production in Whitby (and I mean the one in Ontario, not the one in England), and the only thing here that might maybe constitute an NMUSIC pass, a nomination at the VIMA Music Awards, is both unsourced and unsupported by the award's article. And for sourcing, what we have here is IMDb (not a reliable or notability-conferring source) and blogs right across the board, with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free résumé-hosting platform for emerging actors looking for publicity -- he must already be the subject of reliable source coverage, which verifies that he's already achieved something that satisfies a notability criterion, for an article to become earned. It's not "get into Wikipedia and then maybe you'll get bigger parts and win a Dora someday"; it's "win the Dora and then maybe you'll get into Wikipedia". Bearcat (talk) 06:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete (maybe) as WP:A7, since there are no credible claims of significance. The VIMA Award doesn't even exist anymore (their web domain is for sale). Bearcat's deletion rationale is thorough and sensible. As I've said repeatedly to other subjects of deleted articles, you can't have a Wikipedia article if you're up-and-coming, you must have already arrived. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when your most notable role is in a non-notable production, you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems to have done very minor roles. All the references provided do not seem to be independent and notable themselves. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 06:41, 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 keep. SNOW keep. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Unger[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sites such as primary sources, interviews, Amazon, and Goodreads are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly, unambiguously, without a trace of doubt passes GNG, as the simplest google news search shows. I guess if you're a women, 14 books and endless coverage is just not enough. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. 14 novels, 2 million plus copies, translated into 26 languages. However, the article could really do with some better sources, so I've made a start and added one to back up the 2 million sales. Genre fiction like this will often struggle to get reviewed in reliable sources, but there is enough out there. Edwardx (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs cleanup to remove primary sources (which seems to be happening now), but subject has sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability requirements. Funcrunch (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Poor writing is no reason for deletion. Minimal WP:BEFORE would have confirmed more than enough RS to replace the personal website citations and confirm GNG. SusunW (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick WP:BEFORE search by the nominator would have shown them that the GNG is definitely met by this author. Review after review after review... what more does the nominator want? Exemplo347 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Obviously.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep Sourcing may require fixing, but the subject is plenty notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk • contribs) 17:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This nomination is a disgrace and the nominator ought to try harder next time. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I clicked on the article expecting to find someone self-published (given the nomination criteria) but it clearly appears that this is a high-profile author with significant sales and coverage in several newspapers includes NYT and Washington Post plus NPR. Easy keep per WP:GNG. freshacconci talk to me 21:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I think WP:SNOW applies here. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • error? I have posted on the proposer's talk page as this seems to be a mistake. Obviously notable Victuallers (talk) 10:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. If we assume good faith and competence, an error is the only remaining possibility. Pldx1 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Molina[edit]

Hector Molina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. WP:BLP of a television sportscaster, referenced only to his primary source profile on the website of the team he sportscasts for. Being a sportscaster is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a reliable source coverage -- it would be enough if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but all I can find on a Google News search is coverage of unrelated people with the same name. Bearcat (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is also the subject of this article--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing...but not substantial enough to get him over WP:GNG by itself if it's the best we can find. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Johnson (composer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Interviews are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The article references are not usable because they don't specify enough details to find the actual sources. I did find this book with a significant mention of November. Gab4gab (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Sigh. [37]. This is exactly the sort of article we should have. So tiresome to have to defend blameless articles against ill-researched deletion attempts. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. @GeoffreyT2000: - you really need to read WP:BEFORE. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've upgraded a couple of the refs and left a note on the creating editor's talk page to suggest that they upgrade the rest. Appears clearly notable as a pioneer of minimalist music - appears in several books in Gbooks. PamD 18:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hae now upgraded the other refs as the creating editor found it too difficult: they include Time Out and The Wire. Clearly a notable, if somewhat obscure, character. PamD 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I put the article, and thank you to those who have supported keeping it. Though Dennis Johnson isn't a 'famous' person I believe he deserves credit for his contribution in the development of minimal music. Musicologist Kyle Gann (who is an expert in this field) thought it worthy of spending a great deal of time to let the music be known. Luciferfan (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arise Academy[edit]

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

It appears this school was only open for a couple of years and popped into the news when some directors were charged with taking bribes. Other than that I can find no substantial coverage of the school (and it's unlikely there ever will be since the school has closed). If we keep the article, I don't think it could ever be expanded beyond a couple sentences about this one event. Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and expand with a brief summary of the events leading to its closing. This was a diploma granting institution at one time and it got raped out of existence. People need to know that. John from Idegon (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Arise! Academy. The demise of the school and the associated criminal convictions [38] were widely reported, not just in Ohio,[39] but also received significant coverage in the washington post, Indiana [40], and elsewhere, meeting gng.
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources supplied establish notability for this kinds of school. Alansohn (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the included and above links, I'm still not seeing what makes this school independently notable. Everything that needs to be said about the criminal convictions can be said in a parent article. czar 15:27, 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 Speedy delete, per WP:CSD#G11. (Non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Simon E. Mills[edit]

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

No independent references seem to be available to support statements. Activities do not appear to be notable, in any case. Boneymau (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (provisional) I can't see notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • delete blatant self promotion. Created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. Ajf773 (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 15:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdirahman Koronto[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, written like a résumé and referenced solely to his own WordPress blog, with no evidence of reliable source coverage to demonstrate that he passes WP:JOURNALIST. As always, every journalist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because his own work verifies that he exists; he gets an article when he's the subject of content written by other people, but none is being shown here. Also possible conflict of interest, as the article was created by "AMAK2015". Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 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 15:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Dinkel[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO. After I removed IMDB and press release sources as unreliable, there wasn't anything left that could be called significant coverage by independent reliable sources, and no demonstration of meeting WP:MUSICBIO criteria. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable composer. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 02:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would consider The Hollywood Reporter and Comic M!X (well known and loved publication) reliable sourcesNotoion (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notoion: No one is saying those sources aren't reliable. The problem is that both of those sources give the subject a trivial mention (in this case just a name-drop, not even any descriptive text), which cannot be used to infer notability. We need significant coverage, and there is none to be found. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 2 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 15:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusive Energy Ltd.[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP Very little coverage of the company outside of primary sources. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 02:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What might be your views on the following two magazines, both of which feature the company and its founder on the cover page?[41][42] Lourdes 05:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- sections include:
1. Products and Services
2. Offices and Facilities
3. Leadership
4. Organization and History
Wikipedia is not a WP:WEBHOST to duplicate a company's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW. The article does verify that he competed in the Melbourne Olympics, and so if nothing else, WP:NOLYMPICS would apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ayub (athlete)[edit]

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

Could not find reliable sources for establishing notability. This person thus fails WP:NBIO and WP:ATHLETE. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It fails NBIO and ATHLETE because you cannot find referenes???? WTF? What sort of solipsistic universe do you live in? He passes ATHLETE based on the claims made in the article. I agree we are short on references, but that is not a reason for deletion; I'm going to guess that the internet is not overendowed with sources for 1950s & 1960s athletics competitions. (Also, don't you have better things to do that wander around trying to get other people's work deleted?) --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:BEFORE would have shown the nominator this and this. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: participation in 1956 Olympics is a straight pass for WP:ATHLETE. This AfD seems a waste of everyone's time. PamD 18:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flybe Flight 1284[edit]

Flybe Flight 1284 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of detailed discussion from sources about the incident suggest there is not enough encyclopedic content for this incident. This also pertains to its notability. Jolly Ω Janner 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This incident is notable enough to keep, as long as more sources could be added and the article expanded as a result.TH1980 (talk) 04:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove There have been many landing gear collapse incidents in the past, and without injuries/major damage, this incident is not significant enough to warrant its own article. I do however recommend mentioning this on the Flybe page and the Storm Doris page. BlankBarcode 25 February 2017

  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS applies. A landing gear collapse is unlikely to be such an incident that would generate sustained coverage over time to make it a notable event. --Whpq (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No more notable than an automobile accident with a bit of damage and no injuries. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies. - Ahunt (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - this happened on the 23rd, two days ago, and there are no news stories about this from the 24th or 25th. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There doesn't seem to have been any continuing coverage and in looking through some possible sources I didn't see any more details worth including in the article. I think the brief mention on 2016–17 UK and Ireland windstorm season#Storm Doris is enough. Mortee (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS--Petebutt (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Incident has an unknown cause, until the AAIB have concluded their investigation, the cause of the accident is yet unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.138.177 (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is that relevant to notability? -- Whpq (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually that mostly demonstrates that there is no reason to think that this is notable at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 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. czar 05:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Zamberlin[edit]

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

Non notable son of a notable person. At best deserves a redirect to the father's article. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG or any of the WP:NSPORTS guidelines. The-Pope (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:32, 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 draftify as a reasonable compromise between straight keep and deleting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ginta Biku[edit]

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

Non-notable singer who's participated in one event that she didn't even win (and placed towards the bottom in). The article is also poorly formatted. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – Easily notable; who says 800+ Google News results makes something non-notable? J947 05:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@J947, it's not the quantity of mentions but the quality of depth czar 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to draft space - I'm split over whether the article passes WP:MUSICBIO but I'm erring on the side of failure. However, as the article was recently created and there's a fair bit of content I think, due to its poor writing style and layout, it should be incubated in the draft space to give the creator a chance at improving it. Failing that, it'd be a weak delete per WP:DYNAMITE. DrStrauss talk 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and go through the WP:AFC process as there is notability but the article needs improvement as it is too promotional at present Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Hijam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Wikis and blogs are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, with the large number of films that Hijam has appeared in, she appears to meet WP:NACTOR ie. "1.Has had significant roles in multiple notable films", but a lot of these appear to be minor roles, and the films' articles don't necessarily reflect their notability ie. 1.The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. 2.The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. (most have only two trivial and/or non-useable references, would appreciate input from Indianmovieexpert editors, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources provided during this discussion prove that notability has been met. The sourcing within the article is not a justification for deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AFD seems to have only 1 source (Indian express) which btw is a interview in context of threats received. I would be happy to look at some of these sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She is considered as a prominent actor in Manipur. Mint calls her one of Manipur's 2 leading ladies in [43]. As is mentioned in the previous source, she is threatened by insurgents against acting in movies of other languages. Coupled with the fact that she comes from the North East India, which generally does not occupy news for the right reasons. However she is one of the few actresses from the region who is known to the wider audience of India ([44] is an example for the same). She is also a winner of the Manipur State Film awards for Best Actress [45]. Jupitus Smart 07:19, 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 08:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vas Panagiotopoulos[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced almost entirely to his own writing. As always, a journalist does not get a Wikipedia article on the basis of references where he's the bylined author of content about other things; he gets a Wikipedia article on the basis of references where he's the subject of content written by other people. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this, but the referencing shown here is not what it takes. Bearcat (talk) 01:04, 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 08:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezar Wikina[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of any reliable source coverage about him shown at all. As always, a journalist is not automatically entitled to an article just because his existence can be verified by directories of his own writing on the websites of the publications he wrote for; he gets an article when reliable sources he is not affiliated with are writing about his writing, but nothing like that has been shown here. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete having his works published is not a sign that he is a notable journalist, we need sources that discuss him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 2 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 05:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amna Nasir Jamal[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a journalist, referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown at all. There's a potentially valid claim of notability here as a winner of an entrepreneurial award, but that's not a notability freebie in the absence of media coverage about her winning of the award. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I find no substantial independent coverage of her. As for her claimed activities and achievements: Except for a website called www.santribune.com that seems to be empty, I can't find evidence of any publication called either SAN Tribute or Globe Sentinel. If they exist, they are certainly not notable. Google findings for "International Women Entrepreneur Challenge", besides a couple of pages on the site of a photographer who worked one of their events, are exclusively cases where the organization's award appears on one person or another's list of achievements, so it isn't a notable award. Largoplazo (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough secondary sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 05:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Schaffer[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a single market local television anchor with a few bit part roles of the "journalist plays a journalist in one short scene" variety in TV shows, sourced only to his staff profile on the website of the television station where he works with no evidence of reliable source coverage and no valid claim to passing WP:JOURNALIST shown at all. As always, every local television anchor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourced as more notable than the norm before he qualifies. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nope, being a local news guy with no real other evidence of notability doesn't get you included here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:36, 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. czar 05:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Cartait[edit]

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

Minor roles only, no major coverage; fails WP:NACTOR. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. czar 05:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Polikarpova[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a "regional brand and marketing communication specialist", which just asserts that she exists and sources the fact to her own social networking profiles, but offers no substance and no reliable source coverage to indicate why her existence would pass a Wikipedia notability criterion. As always, we are not a free publicity platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they can be verified as existing; an actual claim of notability, supported by reliable source coverage, must be present for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 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. czar 05:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Thau[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, with some advertorial overtones, of a podcaster who has a valid potential claim of notability but is nowhere close to reliably sourcing it properly. The referencing here depends almost entirely on primary sources rather than independent ones -- and the closest thing to a solid source, Slate, just namechecks her existence briefly without being about her in any substantive way. And I'm not finding much improved sourcing on a Google News search either -- I get a fair number of glancing namechecks of her existence, but not a lot of coverage about her. No prejudice against recreation if and when somebody can source her better than this -- but a podcaster does not get a Wikipedia article just because it can be referenced to its own download page on iTunes or her staff profiles on the websites of her own past employers. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —Non-Dropframe talk 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 nonillion[edit]

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

Non-notable word formed on a predictable numeric system in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. —Non-Dropframe talk 00:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks like this has already been redirected to another article--perhaps an edit conflict? Redirect seems the sensible solution to me. --Mark viking (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn page redirected. —Non-Dropframe talk 00:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Jefferson, J'na (August 23, 2016). "Premiere: Derrick Milano Wreaks Havoc In "What Else?" In New Video". Vibe. Retrieved 23 January 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_February_25&oldid=1142619129"