Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 February	7 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:43, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Covert Ops: The Final Stand[edit]

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

Nothing is written about the movie, fails WP:BASIC and WP:NFILM Flat Out (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - A quick look shows that this "movie" is a six minute, amateur video uploaded to Youtube. It, very obviously, has no reliable sources to indicate any notability, and probably never will. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unconvincing including the mere signs there's no exact confirmation. SwisterTwister talk 05:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above, subject is super non-notable. --TheDragonFire (talk) 08:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:59, 7 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) 13:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFILM. -- Dane ^talk 05:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable WP:NFILM.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naqe'e Al Zabib[edit]

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

Two sentence stub defining a Yemeni beverage. Belongs in Wiktionary at best, as WP:NAD. I looked for reliable sources and found none, only a few blogs and the passing mention from the Yemeni tourism organization which is linked to the article. Fails GNG as to existence of enough significant sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 23:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google books gives plenty of hits. It is a popular health drink, with a fair amount of discussion about why it is o.k. but wine is not. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Aymatth, plenty of hits in Arabic.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah, I see. I could not find English sources and alas, I am unable to read Arabic. Per the policy, non-English sources are OK for the English Wikipedia, but I for one would prefer to see translations of some of the better Arabic sources to establish significance for the subject of this article. Is that possible? Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Running the snippets displayed in the first few Google Books results through Google Translate gives:

After being soaked in water for days-even graduated sweetness to the water Valenqaa genus name is true for more than one type, if you want (Altdechlt_khasas I said: infusion of raisins, or infusion pass, or infusion Milmsh across.... And so on. The difference between the infusion of raisins and wine raisins that the name of the first water-soaked...
5 - the infusion of raisins and grape wine "24 307 - Describe Abdullah bin Namir, for Fadil bin Ghazwan, Asim, button, from Abu Wael, Abdullah said: grape vintage wine 0.24308 - Narrated Abu Osama, Abdullah bin Alwaleed said: auspicious girl told me Abdul Rahman bin stronghold: that her father ...
By Lefty) and (III (sugar) Pfthtin (a raw wet water) if intensified and tossed with butter) and (IV (infusion of raisins, a raw water from raisins), provided that hurls butters after boiling (and total) of any of the three mentioned (haram if boiled and intensified) and not only deprives an agreement, though tossed campus agreement, ...
C - infusion of raisins: 4 - infusion of raisins: is the raw water from the raisins, to leave the raisins in the water is cooked until the sweetness out into the water, then intensify and boil (8) Joe (1) Durr al-Mukhtar margin Radd 290/5 and see Zayla'i (2) praised 288/5 and 45/6 Zayla'i 0.46 and encyclopedia...
«Wine» syrup taken from the infusion of raisins or dates or other, marinades, and leaves, even fermented, and in the two left, and the degree of Tkhmrh so that comes in the door No. 557. (He wrote to the people of Jerash) annexation of the gym and open ra, the country of Yemen. Modern jurisprudence Nawawi said our companions and other scholars: ...
(E) the infusion of raisins and wine grapes 22 827 - Narrated Abu Bakr said to us Abdullah bin Namir for Fadil bin Ghazwan Asim 23828 Tell us about Abu Bakr said to us Abu Osama Abd Allah ibn al-Walid said, she told me auspicious s. .bnt Abdul Rahman bin stronghold that her father asked about wine ...
I believe infusion raisins or dates or other, it is unclean, and limits his mustache saying: 1, as well as the dog]: ie to say the sanctity eat it, and either say Bkrahth Vtaml which will come in Alcolan permissible door. The pig slaughter is not a working consensus. Saying: [If the pig: any Athlh life and the

Not sure if this helps. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Per other voter's reasoning. It appears this subject has enough coverage and sources to defy the nominator's rational. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple google search and translate shows quite a few notable links. -- Dane ^talk 05:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felsőzsolca Városi Sportcsarnok[edit]

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

Was deprodded without rationale. Small local sports arena without any indication of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I concur, there's no substantial signs of significance aside from the few words. SwisterTwister talk 00:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete no indication why this venue would be notable - completely unsourced. User appears to be passionate about local sport in Hungary but does not understand the Notability guidelines or the need for reliable sources. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 05:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails.No references.Does not seem to meet the notability WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016–17 Inverness Caledonian Thistle F.C. season[edit]

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

Article goes no where near proving it meets WP:GNG, sources in article are poor including fan sites. Whilst this may be a notable club it should not automatically gain a season article in my view. In addition its not been updated since September, is a mess made up mostly of stats and is of no net benefit to the encyclopaedia. Season articles are of no benefit if not updated. Should either be deleted or reduced to a stub. Blethering Scot 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per source. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - topic is notable (as nominator basically admits in their statement); the fact it's in a poor state is not reason to delete. Needs improving - so stip it back to a stub and start again. Giant Snowman 09:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - season articles for sides in a fully professional league are notable under WP:NSEASONS. Poor quality should not result in deletion, article needs improving not deleting. Kosack (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NSEASONS. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NSEASONS. Just needs a lot of work. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge important data to Inverness CT FC page, then redirect. Nördic Nightfury 15:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Satisfies WP:NSEASONS. If the issue is that it's not updated, update it rather than delete it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exadel[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. References are the usual low quality mix of self-published/press releases, and mentions in passing. Company doing business as usual; WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. Also, clear WP:COI>created by the company's employee, as they themselves admitted on article's talk page (no, COI is not a reason for deletion, just another red flag suggesting that nobody outside the company itself thinks it is notable). PS. Ping User:Chrissymad who nominated it for speedy; I skipped prod since the creator posted an argument for keeping it on talk. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's borderline. You seem to be correct about the refs -- there is a mix of PR stuff and mere-mention stuff. I'm not seeing any magazine articles about the entity, interviews with the founders, stuff like that. It's highly questionable if the entity meets WP:CORPDEPTH, assuming you exclude self-generated material and press releases. On the other hand... if they have 900 people and operate in several countries (assuming that's true, which I do assume), it's not like they are a local shoe store. They're a significant entity. This is merely a press release, but assuming it is true (which I do assume), they were named to the Software Development Times 100 (albeit in one category, Rich Client). Software Development Times has an article here so I guess it is not just some guy's website. So that's something. But they may be a mere logrolling rag which publishes press releases and gives out awards hoping in return for advertisements from recipients; I don't know. Doesn't look like it.

I tend to be inclusionist for entities like this -- we're not paper, so why not have the material, since somebody's already contributed it? -- so I'm not going to vote them out. Or in, either. I guess it's a question of whether one thinks "900 people and operate in several countries" is the kind of entity we ought to have an article on, or not. Herostratus (talk) 22:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to WP:RS, those are listed as unacceptable references for the purposes of ascertaining notability. I agree they appear to be a big company and one would assume such a company would have been written about in independent third party sources. I've haven't done an extensive search but I only see company-generated PR and announcements or passing mentions (all of which fail WP:RS) so I'm leaning towards Delete. Or to put it another way ... how do we really *know* they have 900 employees and operate in several countries if all the the information we have to go on was produced by the company. It could be all bogus. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's actually simple, the information is all emulative of what their own press releases would say and the sources are then announcements and mentions, both of which are not what substantiates notability here, the history also shows there's been no attempts at confirming any policy-backed improvements. Overall, the article shows clear signs at company involvements. In fact, WP:CORPDEPTH itself states such sources are not independent since all overfocused specifics are naturally going to be by and for the company. We ourselves established policies against such company webhosting because it starts to affect and damage the encyclopedia and what it is, so simply keeping as is for fun, isn't what we considered genuine substance. SwisterTwister talk 04:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, for review. Ok, I agree that some links did not meet Wikipedia policy. I removed them. I am ready to delete all links and facts from the history of the Сompany, which are not suitable for Wikipedia. To make you more well disposed toward the article, I want to discuss some of its links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RichFaces - Wiki page about famous Exadel's product RichFaces. You can read this fact in History chapter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat - wiki page about Red Hat Company. They wrote about the agreement with Exadel about the distribution of its software. http://www.park.by/it/enterprises/?query=Exadel&staff=&lng=en/ - the link which navigates to the site of High-Tech Park of the Republic of Belarus. You can see that Exadel is its resident. This organization belongs to the state and will not place false information. The Information about Belorussian High-Tech Park is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus_High_Technologies_Park; https://appery.io/about-us/ - this site provides information about Appery.io mobile application (Exadel's famous product).http://sdtimes.com/forecast-2016-predictions-around-industry/2/ - Fima Katz(CEO of Exadel and Appery) is being interviewed for CDTimes magazine. https://marketplace.eclipse.org/content/exadel-javafx-plug - another famous product(Exadel JavaFX plug-in) of Exadel. I didn't hide that I am an employee of this company. It is written in my profile. If you advise me what to correct in the article I would be very grateful.Natallia Sasava (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Natallia Sasava: Dear Natallia. Thank you for participating in the discussion. First, if the article would end up beind deleted, you can request that it is instead moved to your sandbox for future refininng (WP:USERFY); even if the conclusion is that the company is not notable now, it could become notable later, so your work wouldn't have to be wasted. Second. While I wouldn't rank Belarus government as highly truthful (dictatorships and truth are not best friends) , I agree there is no reason to doubt [1]. But while the company may and likely does deserve a mention of its name at Belarus_High_Technologies_Park, the fact that the website of that location mentions is does not help in estabilishing notability. That website is pretty much a WP:PRIMARY type of a resource; a de facto directory listing, and as such is not a good source. Being listed in a directory is not an achievement that grants notability. This doesn't even mention the company; that an employee is interviewed may relate to the notability of the employee, but not company, since notability is not inherited between entities. Product pages similarly don't confer notability. If there are reviews of the product, etc., it may deserve an article, but doesn't particularly affect the company. Well, if a company has produced a number of notable products, this usually is an indicator it is notable, but we would have to see the list of products, and discuss which one are notable. And frankly, the RichFaces you mentioned has very poor references and as written, should likely be a subject of its own deletion discussion (fails WP:NSOFTWARE, IMHO). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Piotrus for your time and efforts. 1. Just you were sure that Belarusian Hight-Tech park is not so bad organization I provide you link to The Wall Street Journal about it:) - https://www.wsj.com/articles/belarus-is-emerging-as-the-silicon-valley-of-eastern-europe-1481032802. 2. I removed again some of inappropriate links and added one https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/exadel#/entity (not sure that it is matches your requirements) 3. In case if this article is not suitable for Wiki I would be happy to move it to the sandbox. Should I write a separate request for it? 4. I have also 2 interesting links: http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=931555&privcapId=931537 - profile of Exadel's CEO Fima Katz on Bloomberg site & https://clutch.co/profile/exadel - Exadel's profile on clutch. Could you help me whether they are OK with using them in the article? Natallia Sasava (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- First, you don't have to remove links. Links to conpany website/etc. are not sufficient to provide notability, but they can be used as references for some facts (ex. if only your own website states the number of employees, there is not better source for this key fact, etc.). The Clutch website doesn't seem like a very reliable source. The profile they have reads like PR, and I would be surprised if it weren't written by one of your employees. Such sites, reposting PR/press releases/etc. are not treated as good sources. Similarly, Bloomberg profiles, while more reliable due to its provider reputation, are also usually written either by the subject/company employees, or based on materials sent by them to Bloomberg. Further, as such websites do not make it transparent what are the criteria for inclusion, we have to assume they include anyone who pays them the fee, and as such, inclusion in such directories is not seen as saying much about the company's/person importance. I assume you have read WP:NCORP. An argument for company's notability has to be based on that. Good sources include coverage in reputable media, and winning major (not minor) awards. Since you expressed the wish to have the article moved to your userspace if it is deleted, I assume the closing admin will read it and will do so instead of outright deletion if this is the conclusion of the debate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I agree that article needs to be moved to sandbox for further improvements in case it is not suitable for wiki now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natallia Sasava (talk • contribs) 11:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no prospect that further work on it will show notability , and I therefore suggest plain deletion, without moving to user space, where it will remain forever. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've added a few new links that may increase notability and improve credibility - link to eclipse community, to oracle (these references are very competent in IT-world), please take a look. And anyway we need some time to find evidences and improve article so if notability is still under question please would you be so kind to move our article to sandbox to continue work on it. Thank you Natallia Sasava (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Work[edit]

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

Although the article has a bunch of links in its references section, none of them are actually about the book that is supposed to be the subject of the article. Many are website biographies about the author. The author herself is probably notable, but the book does not seem to be. I don't believe it passes WP:GNG or more specifically WP:NBOOK. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any reviews, as written fails NBOOK. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there are no reviews, then the article lacks the notability needed.TH1980 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added reviews to the book's page. Would rather fix the issues than delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobtar1 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The two "reviews" that you added are from the Amazon website selling the book. Those are reviews that are gathered by the publisher to be included with the book sale. The reviews on the Amazon page do not come from a reliable 3rd party source in my opinion. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Buddhist Monasteries in the Asia-Pacific Region[edit]

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

I don't think we should be comparing monasteries. Those are not comparable. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOR. These monasteries don't even have articles. (Zealandia?) Clarityfiend (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What, none of the Buddhist monasteries in the entire Asia-Pacific region are notable? This will be huge, the editors have barely started; review the original concept. ~~I'm thinking more columns, including ratings on adherence to each of the Ten Precepts.~~ Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I added a little to what is clearly a work in progress. This could become a great place to start for those interested in this topic. There are a few hundred Buddhist monasteries in the Asia-Pacific region that have WP articles and can therefore be assumed to be verifiable and notable (Tibet, China, India are all in Asia-Pacific). A neatly organized table with brief summaries of their features must be considered notable. Yes, there are other lists, but nothing like this that I could find. For example, List of Buddhist temples is just a list, no summary, and doesn't focus on residential monasteries. Another example, List of Tibetan monasteries could be helpful to editors of this list, but it is less geographically extensive, and includes ancient monasteries that have been destroyed. Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the argument is that you don't like comparisons, then perhaps move it to another namespace. That isn't an argument for deletion. As for WP:NOR, I can't really see that here. The creator is not visiting every Buddhist monastery in the Asia-Pacific region, there are clearly sources but they are not being cited by the inexperienced creator. The better response is to mark with the "citation needed" template, and perhaps some additional coaching. As this article was created yesterday and the only maintenance tag was "orphan" added a matter of hours ago, this is a premature AfD. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be a touristic guide to monasteries even though it doesn't describe itself as such. Wikipedia is not a directory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Those listed so far don't seem to be monasteries that are of tourist interest (unless it's a touring monk or nun). Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are comments like "Accommodation Styles: ... Huts, Motel, Dormitory ... Cabins, Camping ... Limited numbers of guests are able to stay. Food is provided by alms-givers and there is no monetary charge." Only 7 monasteries have been listed so far, all in Australia. The table also has columns for "Retreat Type" and "Volunteer Roles", but none of the entries have been filled in yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Monasteries are residential, so accommodation style is a relevant part of the description. The part about "...limited number of guests... food provided by alms-givers..." was added inappropriately (for the context) by me (although I'd argue that sort of information is relevant to monastic life). I couldn't find info about where the monks and nuns live, so I just added what I could quickly find.
    - As for the limited info so far, the article was only started on Sunday. The creator has set a big task and it will take time and help. Even so, if it was just an overview of Buddhist monasteries in Australia, that in itself would be a notable. An individual monastery may lack sufficient notability for a stand-alone article, but a description of Buddhist monasteries in Australia (in which two or three are sufficiently notable for separate articles) or an overview of Buddhist monasteries in a multi-national region (in which several hundred are individually notable) is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NOTINHERETED. Article does not appear encyclopedic either. Ajf773 (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:HOWTO. I would not oppose a "List of", but this is too much of a mess. Bearian (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be better if the creator starts over and styles the article similarly to existing lists of monasteries, such as List of monasteries in Australia and List of Buddhist monasteries in Sikkim, or perhaps List of monastic houses in Lincolnshire and List of monasteries of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)? Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are other Websites dedicated to this kind of information, but Wikipedia just isn't the place for it. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Talai[edit]

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

Not notable. Outside of a mention in an article for the 2017 Women's March and a single interview, he's not really known for anything besides voiceover work. The only other things I see listed for him are IMDB, his own site, etc. LovelyLillith (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable voice actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NACTOR, subject not having had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows or stage performances. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for Entertainers.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:GNG and the more specific criteria. Laurdecl ^talk 06:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel M. Jackson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR with no in-depth secondary sources about the person and only weak support (a Bookseller review quote of "I actually believe this may be the first book on the subject"?) for being "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique". Of the three sources added in response to the second prod, Brand Admiration appears to be a footnote, Nation Branding is a chapter written by Jackson himself and The Business of Entertainment spends a page and a half quoting Jackson but tells us nothing about him. McGeddon (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least, until the author in question gains the reputation needed for notability.TH1980 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an as yet non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this list is unsuitable as a topic for Wikipedia at this time. Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of carbon accounting software[edit]

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

List of almost entirely non-notable software products, per WP:STAND, the only sensible option here is delete. Waggie (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOTLINKFARM. Fails WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Layzner (Talk) 18:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Some of the linked pages like FirstCarbon Solutions were deleted multiple times. I would also recommend deleting Access Dimensions. Ziphit (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails.promocional articleCAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Deeh Pitre[edit]

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

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

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

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a musician and filmmaker, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:CREATIVE and no strong reliable sourcing to get him over WP:GNG. Nearly all of the referencing here is to primary sources and blogs which cannot support notability -- and the few genuinely reliable sources are all parked on one live performance, which just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Outside of that live performance itself, the only other real notability claim here is that he and his music exist, but "he exists" is not what gets a musician a Wikipedia article -- "he can be reliably sourced as passing NMUSIC for something" is, but that's not being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's a world famous busker and a lot of links are legit sources (Exclaim, The Canada Winter Games, Festival du Nouveau Cinema and all the Seal coverage). Add his filmmaking and the Elisa Jordana's show (Howard Stern), we have a notable artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.83.98 (talk) 17:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 174.89.83.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Canada Winter Games and the Festival du nouveau cinema are not media outlets — a person does not get over our notability criteria for those things, if the source for those things is those things' own self-published websites about themselves. Doing music for the Canada Winter Games does not count as notability until media are writing and publishing content about his music for the Canada Winter Games. Appearing on a podcast does not count as notability if the source for that appearance is the podcast itself; it counts as notability only when media start writing and publishing content about his appearance on the podcast. And on and so forth: a person does not get to public-relations or primary source themselves into notability — newspapers and books and magazines and radio and television have to give the notability to him by covering him. And all he's got for real media coverage is "once sang one duet with one singer once", which just makes him a person notable only for a single isolated event. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The London Evening Standard and Niagara Falls Review citations seem to contradict your condescending "once sang one duet with one singer once" quote. They clearly shows this was the genesis of opportunities presented to numerous buskers which garnered worldwide media attention. Seal mentioning this encounter months later in many interviews make this crystal clear.

Kindly note that the London Evening Standard and Niagara Falls Review citations fail to do something very important: actually have Pitre as their subject. Neither one of those citations, in fact, even contains a single solitary mention of his name, let alone actually being about him in any remotely substantive way that would assist notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A multi-million view YouTube duet with a world famous singer is the equivalent to a Top 20 hit these days. Providing music for The Canada Winter Games (with the on-air mention in the video provided) as well as his other accomplishments should be rewarded instead of trivialized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resealed (talk • contribs) 15:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

No number of hits or views or likes or retweets on any social media platform confers an inclusion freebie on a person who isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. A person can get a billion YouTube hits, and they're still not notable for our purposes until real media start writing about the fact. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This story was covered by every major media outlet and citations seem to have been included to back this fact up. Citations from ABC News and Time Magazine back up that "real" media did indeed write "about" the fact.

The Time citation just mentions Pitre's name in a blurb, and is not about him. The ABC citation is to a YouTube video, which is something that's never permissible at all: the citation must be to ABC's site, never to any user-generated video sharing site reposting ABC's content in violation of ABC's copyright on that content. Pitre has to be the subject of a source, not just have his name glancingly namechecked within a source primarily about someone else, before that source can count as support for notability — and the context of what the source says about him has to actually satisfy an WP:NMUSIC criterion, which nothing here does. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBC News, CTV News, Global News, Montreal Gazette all make Pitre the "subject". All are major Canadian news outlets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 00:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journal de Montreal and the Telegraph Journal (to name a couple more) has done lengthy pieces with Jason as a subject. The wiki page is clearly a work in progress and more will be added. Jason was also a notable Canadian adult film director and those sources will be added, for example. On at least two occasions, Seal has publicly said on video that he will collaborate and represent Jason in the near future. To be fair, I can see the non-linear aspect of Jason's career(s) to be a little confusing as his notability switches from national, to local and to international depending on the artistic merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.83.98 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valid points regarding CWG contribution & the "inspiration" with Seal's #streetsongs. This took it beyond "that live performance" and made the artist more than noteworthy considering it helped other buskers make it to major stages around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.201.196 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— 46.36.201.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Entry seems to be properly sourced and can be expanded on. Comments regarding "sang one duet" are beginning to enter the territory of flaming and seem to be against the true spirit of Wikipedia, "WP:BIGDEAL" may need to be reviewed. The use of "once" also is not factual as two performances are cited. The #streetsongs movement also seems properly sourced and make this more than a one-off as it is being presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 00:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete A subject whose credits are non-notable self-produced works. Half the sources are user-contributed sites, social media, blogs, and insignificant music websites. The other half are 17 links to one of two related non-notable events: busking with Seal, and Seal deciding to use buskers for his opening act. Just because something makes the news—even among legitimate news outlets—and goes viral doesn’t make it encyclopedically important. At best, this would merit a small mention on a wikipage for Seal’s tour, re: a novel way of finding opening acts, and even then it wouldn’t be necessary to identify any busker(s) by name. I’m also troubled by multi “keep” arguments from various SPA’s with different IP addresses that disparage any attempt to point out the shortcomings of the “Keep” arguments. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exclaim.ca being referred to as part of the "insignificant music websites" should call for a review of their wikipage. There are ways to have a civil discourse without resorting to such dishonest hyperbole to make a point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twibalm (talk • contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Twibalm, I apologize causing confusion with a general statement about sources rather than characterizing them one by one. I agree there is no need to question the veracity of Exclaim! as a product. My reference to this particular review, however, meant to be understood as “user submitted,” i.e. accepting content from either non-professional contributors and/or those wishing to promote themselves. (see Exclaim’s own guidelines that direct artist how to “Get Coverage”: http://exclaim.ca/contact/getcoveragen). Obviously this is not the case with everything in their publication/website, but the consistency of the coverage on this subject (minus the busking incident) tends to fall in the self-promotion coverage category, something generally the fate of self-produced music that does not have label representation. A final point: you are simply mistaken by asserting this is a non-civil conversation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BIO1E. I think there's probably also a WP:NOTINHERITED argument to be made given how much of this is driven by Seal's celebrity rather than independent interest in Pitre. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Spotted Eagle[edit]

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

This person was only briefly in the news for receiving an electoral vote from a faithless elector, I believe that this falls short of what the project deems notable, per WP:BLP1E. ValarianB (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, she is the first Native American to receive an electoral vote for U.S. President, and her and Hillary Clinton are also the first women to receive electoral votes for U.S. President. Very notable, well sourced, and the page is a fine addition to many projects here on Wikipedia. She is also notable for her activism and work in Native American education. Randy Kryn 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to satisfy the second prong of WP:BLP1E due to persistent, ongoing public activism. While her role in the election was not substantial, the article appears to have sources covering her for other reasons (e.g. the Lambrecht book). Layzner (Talk) 19:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randy Kryn and Layzner. Because she already has been in the public sphere, the privacy concerns underlying BLP1E don't apply.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, article has acceptable RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Snow Close per above. MB298 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets last point of WP:POLOUTCOMES ("1st Native American in U.S. history to receive an Electoral College vote" [2]) and GNG. Seattle (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep why would we even want to delete this? Lepricavark (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong reliable and verifiable sources indisputably about the subject, covering notability that goes well beyond any one event. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable person and is notable in multiple events (Electoral vote and her work with Native Americans) Adamtt9 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable person. -- Dane ^talk 05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable WP:Politician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Keller[edit]

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability of this progressive leader. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Neither academic notability (WP:PROF) nor general notability (WP:GNG) is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur w above analysis. Agricola44 (talk) 16:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (WP:SNOW). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamsheed Chosky[edit]

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

subject fails WP:GNG and as an academic, he also fails WP:PROF —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's a Distinguished Professor at Indiana, and I see at least two books that have been widely reviewed in academic journals. I don't have time to add these right now, but I can do so later. EricEnfermero (Talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Reasonable GS cites for a low-cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The name is misspelled (should be Jamsheed Choksy), and Vanjagenije recently deleted an attempt at a copy-and-paste-move correction of the misspelling instead of actually noticing it and fixing it. I suppose that while the AfD continues the page should not be moved, but it needs to be done immediately afterwards. In any case, under the correct spelling it is not hard to verify his distinguished professor title (automatic pass of WP:PROF#C5) and also his frequent appearances in mainstream media and national panels (#C7). —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An impressive list of accomplishments and awards.[3] (I've moved it to the correct spelling.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes both GNG and Prof. Lepricavark (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:PROF. -- Dane ^talk 06:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -per WP:PROF, being a distinguished professor grants notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) SkyWarrior 04:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jody Armour[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only reference is to the university they teach at. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The person holds or has held a named chair appointment... at a major institution". Roy P. Crocker Professor of Law at USC wouldn't apply? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any response from the nominator, who continues to bring articles to Afd with scant rationales, I default to keep per WP:NACADEMIC, if nothing else. This is a named chair faculty position at a major educational institution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Formal pass of WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C5 and dubious WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE deletion rationale. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though not a stellar rep of academic decorum, this person is clearly notable per se by virtue of his position. Agricola44 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal. If someone is inclined to describe the context of the subject's work, here's some fairly detailed coverage of Negrophobia and Reasonable Racism: [4] [5]. EricEnfermero (Talk) 08:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:Prof#C5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly passes Academic #5. Some of the above statements make me think there are sources that could be used to flesh out this article, although people have to make sure to abide by BLP standards.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Significant notability established easily sufficient to surpass WP:GNG requirements. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ASEAN School Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Gnews links directly above reveals more than enough coverage to rather easily meet WP:GNG. Individual years at these games may well not be notable. But a main article seems a slam dunk. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. 317 Gnews links, pages and pages specifically about this event, headline after headline. In addition, WP:GEOSCOPE – demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world (640,000,000 people in South East Asia) from annual events since 2009. I don't understand why this was nominated. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the abundance of available sources. Lepricavark (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chizoba Ejike[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: I'm not sure why the nominator nominated this for deletion. The subject has participated in several pageants including Miss Regal International and Miss Anambra Pageantry which she won in 2014. P.S; the simple and short "non-notable" reason isn't convincing. --—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwa2Chainz created the article.

The article's subject doesn't meet WP:GNG.

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Participating in beauty pageants like Miss Regal International and Miss Anambra Pageantry is completely irrelevant to notability. Both of the links that were posted are not reliable sources. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. She won a minor beauty pageant - Miss Independence Anambra (which itself ~~seems like~~ is now a candidate for deletion) - and was second runner-up in another. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NOTABILITY big time. Not enough independent sources. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning sub-national pageants as she has is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 06:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article has not received extensive coverage in reliable independent sources. She only received coverage for winning the 2014 Miss Independence Anambra, as well as for attending the maiden edition of the Anambra Heritage Festival. As a matter of fact, she is only notable for a single event. Since the subject's role within the pageant is not a large one, a separate article is not necessary. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable pageant, no other apparent coverage to meet GNG on other grounds. Montanabw^(talk) 11:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.Non-notable people.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable person. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of 4chan[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. It should be deleted or merged to its parent article 4chan —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page creator routinely puts up half finished repetitive "listicles" with info from other articles, often multiple at a time, and then abandons them in the hopes that someone else will finish them. As of right now this piece lends nothing other than clutter. JamesG5 (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you make an actual, policy-based argument rather than engaging in mudslinging? Riceissa (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per CSD#A10. Duplicates 4chan. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 19:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, sorry, this does not apply here. The page does not duplicate a topic. It might duplicate some of the content, but not the topic. Riceissa (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that is nonsense; the article clearly duplicates the topic "4chan". Please feel free to make a !vote, with reasoning for a keep, merge, redirect or delete. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 22:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only people here speaking nonsense are the ones pushing for deletion. This article cannot be duplicating the topic "4chan", because it is about the history of 4chan and the specific events that have happened in the course of that history. Riceissa (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See 4chan#History. Please feel free to make a !vote. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete creator has argued that social media sites have timelines on Wikipedia that have survived AfDs, so this timeline has a basis for existence. Other stuff exists is no basis for keeping an article. This article adds nothing to 4chan. Mduvekot (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That's right, "other stuff exists" is no basis, but being a notable topic is a valid basis for keeping the article. Riceissa (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Riceissa appears biased. She and Ethanbas are friends and work together doing paid edits, they routinely team up to defend each other in AfDs. This has become a routine issue in the last few weeks. JamesG5 (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Timelines can help to clarify narratives, but in this case there is nothing to clarify. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 4chan#History seems more suitable, since that contains much of the notable dates and events that would be on a Timeline of 4chan article. Alcherin (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 4chan#History. I cannot see the point of this, which as Ryk72 points out is basically a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of 4chan#History, for no apparent reason. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CFORK from 4chan. Unnecessary non-encyclopedic article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Hamilton Scobell[edit]

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

Does not appear to be of note, nothing in here article indicates she has done anything that would make her notable, proposed deletion challenged with the comment as she has a connection with Princess Diana it needs to go to AfD, as far as I can see being her step-great-grandmother does not make her notable enough for a stand-alone article as notability is not inherited. MilborneOne (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Google Books her daughter wrote 2 books (and she may have been mentioned in an Agatha Christie novel (not sure because I didn't get to see the preview)) and she was married to someone. That's all I could find. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after 10 years hear, I've been a big fan of WP:NOTINHERITED, but I also feel that any controversial deletions need to be discussed here for seven days. A reasonable argument could be made that she's notable as a royal-hanger-on. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Pappas[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Miss United States is not even a major title, even less so for its state competitors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Groot[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unimpressed with the load of AFDs while the RFC is in progress. I know your thoughts on it isn't the only opinion. Subject held countries national title and competed at one of the two most important international pageants. Obviously being the 70s and not an English speaking country there's going to be more of a struggle to find articles. Would suggest keeping your trial balloons to yourself until RFC is dealt with --- PageantUpdater (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The RfC has near uninimous opposition. It is very clear that people do not accept that you can declare some competitions default make someone notable, and ignore the lack of sources. There are not enough sources here to pass GNG so the article should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – It remains unclear what users PageantUpdater and Johnpacklambert are referring to. Please clarify and explain the reason for this nomination. Without clarification and/or rationale it should not be deleted. – Editør (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although the "load of AFDs" and the "RfC" remain unidentified, I believe notability has been established by the additional references to third party sources. – Editør (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I am talking about is the attempt to ram-rod default notability for Miss World competitors that has failed. The article lacks multiple cases of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources and as uch fails the GNG and should be deleted. We don't keep articles just because someone aserts there are sources that are not easy to find that they in no way identify, we keep articles based on sources, of which there are not enough here to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added additional references to third party sources. – Editør (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 70s era Miss Europe and national qualifier for Miss World get this one there for me. Agree with PageantUpdater on this one. Montanabw^(talk) 11:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Consider a redirect to Miss Europe § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned (as Anke Groot). This would be a functional WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. European title holder, surely of some national celebrity as verified by the Dutch newspaper sources. That she's not heavily written up is no surprise--she's Dutch, and this is the 1970s, so the internet is only of limited help. Perhaps User:Trijnstel has some books on the shelf... Dr Aaij (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, I don't. But personally I would keep this page... Trijnstel_talk 22:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andi Tenri Gusti Hanum Utari Natassa[edit]

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

non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a pageant of insufficient notability; national winners that are non-finalists would not meet the threshold. Winners perhaps. Montanabw^(talk) 11:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Asia Pacific World § 2012 where the subject is mentioned as "Andi Natassa", per WP:ATD-R. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that this presidential memorandum is not significant enough to warrant a standalone encyclopedia article at this time. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a memo asking for a plan and that's the only thing here that is not OR. The entire foreign coordination part refers to discussions about terrorism and ISIS without any reference to an overall plan to defeat them or any connection to this memo. We can't possibly include articles on every memo signed by a head of state and should wait until such a plan exists and is discussed by reliable sources. regentspark (comment) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I have argued elsewhere, we cannot have an article on every statement, memorandum, executive action, and policy that every world leader announces. There is no evidence that this particular item has any lasting significance, nor that it needs a standalone article. In addition, there are serious problems with synthesis. Vanamonde (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot be saved even if the OR is cleared up. Presidents routinely issue hundreds of executive orders and memoranda, and precedent is that only those of exceptional importance (e.g. Executive Order 9066) merit a standalone article. No reliable source appears to suggest anything near that level of importance for this memo. Layzner (Talk) 18:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Wikipedia's job to document every document ever written. Even if this wasn't WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also agree we should not have a whole new article every time a world leader signs a piece of paper. People seem to forget that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete--For all the above reasons.Winged Blades^Godric 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and for reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Kierzek (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Presidents sign hundreds of executive orders. Only the most notable attract sufficient coverage to warrant their own articles. This isn't one of them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the foreign policy of a president may be suitable for an article. A notable aspect of that policy may as well. This doesn't achieve either level. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:TOOSOON, and WP:SNOW. It's so remotely removed from an actual plan or a real law as to be useless and confusing to our readers. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON — JFG ^talk 16:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS - No need for a new article every time Trump scratches his head, is there? Exemplo347 (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Hi, I have added recent update of content in relation to the article, along with a source, as with diff [6], I would wish to know, how can we improve it?, thanks. Junosoon (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

just to add a comment , the two sections of memo read a) It is the policy of the United States that ISIS be defeated, and b) Policy Coordination, so the parts of foreign coordination, related to ISIS', can be possibly covered in the article, as they are part of memo. Please share your thoughts. Junosoon (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC). Reference [7].[reply]

Delete per what everyone else has mentioned. This isn't significant enough to warrant its own article yet and can probably be mentioned in Trump's presidential article if it isn't already. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to go with weak keep since the plan that was supposed to be drafted according to the memorandum is supposed to find itself on the desk of Trump within just over three weeks, and potentially, potentially might break new ground in terms of that war, so it's conceivable that the article might be returned to or even recreated if deleted, but the suggestions towards deletion are overwhelming, so I guess this is rather a comment. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aileena Catherine Amon[edit]

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

Non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant winner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only claims here are mere participations. SwisterTwister talk 23:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Pageants won by this individual are largely non-notable. Insufficient indicia of notability for any other reason. Article is also quite poorly written and poorly sourced. Montanabw^(talk) 11:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss India South § List of winners, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus for this particular individual in the group of nominations DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alysha Boekhoudt[edit]

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

Non-notable (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Miss Universe contestants are notable. The fact that there's a template on the page showing that literally all the other contestants at that competition have articles should have told you that. Smartyllama (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not (unless they pass WP:GNG, and Alysha does not). The template should be deleted as well, I'll nominate it too. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Many articles have been written to promote beauty pageant contestants by a paid sockfarm, but the existence of those articles does not make those people (and others who have also been in pageants) notable. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/HotelCoupons.com and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ForRent.com. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Miss Universe is probably the best-known pageant in the world; national level winners are notable. There are a lot of other pageant articles that are non-notable, but this one is. Montanabw^(talk) 11:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RfC_about_the_draft_SNG. Beauty pageant contestants who do not meet WP:GNG, like this one, should not have an article. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Aruba § Titleholders, where the subject is mentioned, per WP:ATD-R. Valid search term. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a person who represented her nation at the highest-level of competition in her field. It is reasonable to presume that there are reliable sources beyond those that already appear in the article, even if those additional sources have not yet been found. NewYorkActuary (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Actually we have a RFC that says that it is NOT reasonable to presume the existence of reliable source for beauty pageant participants. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#RfC_about_the_draft_SNG I used Google and my conclusion was that the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. http://www.cracked.com/article_19880_5-dumb-hobbies-you-wont-believe-have-world-championships.html The person who won the Rock Paper Scissors World Championships (the highest-level of competition in her field) in 2008, Monica Martinez, got more press (heck, some of them are reliable sources!). [8] (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. The recent RfC was called to discuss whether a particular draft guideline should be endorsed as "official", and it is inaccurate to suggest that the result prohibits any presumptions as to the existence of sources. Nor could it ever have reached such a result, because that would contradict the very presumptions that have long been accepted in many other areas in the entertainment realm. Thus, we do not demand multiple references for any person who has played baseball at the major-league level, nor for any cricketer who has played at the Test level, nor for any athlete who has competed in the Olympics. The common thread in all of these examples (as well as the many others that could also be mentioned) is that they have participated in structured competitions at the highest levels in their field. As for the "Google test", it is well-nigh useless in cases where the competitions pre-date the digital era or where the sources are most likely to have been written in languages that do not use the Roman alphabet. An insistence on using the "Google test" will only exacerbate the dual problems of recentism and systemic bias.

The Rock Paper Scissors counter-example was amusing. And if the World RPS Society ever gets around to sponsoring a structured system of international competition, perhaps we'll need to have a discussion about it. (But I trust that neither one of us will be holding our breath waiting for that to occur.)

Thanks again for the comments. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Prime Ministers of Finland by time in office[edit]

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

This article should be deleted everything it can do can be done at List of Prime Ministers of Finland so List of Prime Ministers of Finland by time in office is not needed. This list might be able to have a speedy deletion through WP:A10 as an article that does not expand upon List of Prime Ministers of Finland. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same info is already in the List of Prime Ministers of Finland article. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikidata or Wikiversity. This is data, it could be useful for original research. Michael Ten (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, info already found in the sortable table in List of Prime Ministers of Finland, delete per WP:DEL5. — Sam Sailor 01:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary duplicate of the main list. Years ago, when Wikipedia programming didn't allow for sortable tables yet, we would regularly maintain multiple lists of the same topic reclassified on different sort criteria — but as soon as sortable tables came into use, there was no longer any reason to do that anymore. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is a duplicate, and an inferior duplicate at that. List of Prime Ministers of Finland presents the same information in an easier-to-read and more visually rich manner. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Nach Baliye#Nach Baliye 7. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nach Baliye 7[edit]

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

The article`s content is more appropriately used on another article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nach_Baliye#Nach_Baliye_7), therefore this article has little reason to remain. Okamialvis (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection done to Nach Baliye#Nach Baliye 7 This didn't need to go to AfD at all; took me thirty seconds to redirect it (IP who re-created article should have been just warned and whatever they did disregarded). This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 20:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Nach Baliye#Nach Baliye 6. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nach Baliye 6[edit]

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

After a successful merge discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nach_Baliye#Proposed_merge_with_Nach_Baliye_6), this article was merged, yet it remains. Okamialvis (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection done to Nach Baliye#Nach Baliye 6 This didn't need to go to AfD at all; took me thirty seconds to redirect it (IP who re-created article should have been just warned and whatever they did disregarded). This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenevive[edit]

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

Previous AFD was closed as no consensus due to lack of participation, so I'm sending this to AFD again. The reasons are the same: an apparent lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, with most online hits being passing mentions, and only one source (this one) being of note. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The present coverage is too sparse for this person to pass WP:NARTIST, and I don't see how they would pass WP:NMUSICBIO, neither. If you do, do ping me so I can reconsider my arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; should have been soft deleted last time. Laurdecl ^talk 06:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek A Rastogi[edit]

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

Article about an indirect tax partner and author. Sources mostly mention him in passing, or are non-WP:INDEPENDENT sources, or sources based on press releases. I was not able to find reliably sourced biographical material. Fails WP:NAUTHOR.- Mr X 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC) - Mr X 13:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable accountant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as stated, nothing more than press releases and promotional material are provided to justify notability. The article is promotional in nature too. Spiderone 11:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet any notability guidelines. Promotional content. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huseynağa Rzayev[edit]

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

No reliable sources to prove WP:notability. Google news search returns 0 hits. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ineptly written BLP of an academic whose work seems to have been cited by nobody. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing significant in WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 05:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when one of two sources is from Facebook there is no way to pas WP:GNG. No sign that the subject meets any notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to prove notability. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. (non-admin closure) f eminist 10:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Management Studies, IIT Roorkee[edit]

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

This department doesn't seem to be independently notable, because there is no substantial coverage in independent sources. Redirection to the school's article has been repeatedly reverted. This AfD is intended to clarify the consensus to keep this page a redirect. Slashme (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee. I suggest delete&redirect, due to multiple previous reverts of the redirect. I did a pretty extensive source check, and I'd like to congratulate the IP editor who pushed this to AFD and full source check. I did find ONE good source for notability, the Hindustan Times reporting charges that the Department was putting false information in it's admission brochure.[9] That alone not enough to keep the article, but if additional good sources are supplied then we keep the article AND we include this source too. We'll just need to dig up an editor with Highbeam access to read the full article. Alsee (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested, and it's cheap. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. per SK1 - No valid reason's been presented. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mithila Palkar[edit]

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

Notability is too much sensitive Kumaraswamyyy (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: (edit conflict) The refs in the article establish notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 13:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I concur with KGirlTrucker81.FITINDIA (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep unambiguously notable DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG, notabilitybeing established by references in article. Also stars in the web series Girl in the City. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable WP:Entertainer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Keller[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence for notability, though there are probably some minor notices to be found. In any case, it's intended as promotion of herself and her business interests. DGG ( talk ) 10:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources to be added. Freyja10 ( talk ) 7:20, 6 February 2017 (PST)

Delete. I looked for any RS mentions of her and couldn't even find the Hollywood Reporter blurb mentioned (but not cited) in the article. Part of the article is about her relatives surviving the Holocaust, which doesn't make her uniquely notable per WP:BIO rules, either. LovelyLillith (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only passing trivial mentions. Can't find anything else of note. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump promise of Making America Safe Again[edit]

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

This topic is not remotely appropriate for a standalone article: Trump's campaign positions and policy positions are covered extensively elsewhere, at Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Inaugural_address, to begin with. On a slightly different level we cannot create an article for every sound byte produced by every political leader; if this particular slogan ends up having enduring notability, we can recreate it when such can be demonstrated. Delete. Vanamonde (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as already covered in other articles, and there is no evidence that this is deserving of its own. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikinews is that'a way. I'm still firm that the whole lot of soundbyte articles need to be deleted, (Basket of deplorables, Alternative facts), as having basically no enduring encyclopedic value, but this is an even worse WP:NOTNEWS offender than even those. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events.

This is not only of dubious enduring notability, but it's not even clear what the actual topic is, or what even semi-objective standard could be applied to justify inclusion or exclusion of content. Besides, it's just begging for both sides to dump in as much WP:OR as they can find, that can in any way be connected to whether we are "safe again" and/or whether we were safe to begin with. TimothyJosephWood 13:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per above. The topic is already adequately covered in multiple other articles and there is not much to suggest that this article can offer any thing more to the subject. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no enduring notability. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. AusLondonder (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYN. There are a lot of notable topics being addressed here (stuff from his campaign, inaugural address, executive orders, etc.) but I don't think it comes together to make one notable topic. Although those things are notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Delete for all the above reasons. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should not have articles on WH press releases unless there are extraordinarily notable circumstances surrounding it. TheValeyard (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--Wikipedia is not about a collection of bits and bytes that any political leader may produce during his/her tenure.Winged Blades^Godric 13:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like an attempt to set up a space in which criticisms of Trump can be collected without respect for NPOV, since almost all criticism of him can be related to this and argued to be noteworthy. While I have virtually no respect for Trump myself, I can't endorse something like this. WP policy trumps politics. Pun intended, thank you. $ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.$ 16:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What even is this? The English itself is appalling, let alone the article title...TJH2018 talk 16:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough for a separate article. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone SNOW this already? Why am I still seeing this on my watchlist? TimothyJosephWood 23:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of hope this AfD runs its full course, or at least for a day or two more. I've used the article as a salient example of Junosoon's article creations in a discussion at WP:ANI, which will fall a bit flat if people go to read it and it's not there. I think you can safely take it off your watchlist, Timothyjosephwood. Bishonen | talk 02:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  - Adding: the ANI discussion has been closed now, so I have no further objection to a SNOW close of this one. Bishonen | talk 16:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per everyone else... doesn't warrant its own article. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. This phrase is used as a rhetorical device by many authors, but I couldn't find sources that talk about this phrase's history, significance, etc. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : About this article, it is about the official statement [10], which was issued on February 4, 2017, by Trump administration, so I think the title can be worked on, second section in the article, deals with the error in statement, for Australian Prime Minister, which made statement, notable, if proper toning or title change can help, looking forward for contributions for it. Thanks. Junosoon (talk) 11:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, we really don't need a separate article for every official statement made by every world leader (or even every statement made by Donald Trump specifically). Such statements only need to be included in wider articles about, for example, each leader's policies. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for an article about what the meaning of the word "is" is. Just sayin'.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it.

13:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above and WP:TRIVIA most of which are better suited to belong in another article. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. : Nominator @Vanamonde93:, would you mind looking through slogans articles , donot remember the exact , title but read it sometime similar to this article, Good days, as we cannot create an article for every sound byte produced by every political leader, from India too. I guess we have couple of them too, as this one. Kindly guide.Junosoon (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Junosoon, I'm not sure what you want from me, or how this is relevant. I have no intentions of spending all my time hunting for similarly non-notable articles; but rest assured, if I come across such I will send them to AfD, regardless of who the creator is. If my memory serves, I have done so before this AfD, too. Vanamonde (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. hoax, nn anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramin Amiri[edit]

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

No verifiable evidence for existence of footballer. Author has the close connection to article topic: name is the same.(COI). Author continually engages in edit war with another user and I: deleting our templates. GabetheEditor^(talk_cont) 04:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Author is now blocked, I can't find evidence of this player's existence anywhere, not notable unless he has played a game, sourced only to an instagram page. I think this is borderline G3, but I'm hoping an admin will snowball clause this soon enough anyway. Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to more common English name of this late professor. Cleanup is recommended, though the details are beyond the scope of this AfD. Deryck C. 17:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fu Ren-Kun[edit]

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

The importance of geopolitics is not shown and is questionable. The design does not meet the rules. To remove the complete insignificance and nightmarish content and design.--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 08:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created with the wrong template and never transcluded to a daily log. One of a series of malformed nominations. Fixed now--I offer no opinion of my own on the nomination itself at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the Comment. The nomination fails to express a clear rationale for deletion of this biographical article. If the subject is non-notable, someone will need to provide a much better explanation why. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in GS. or WP:TNT. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but only if we can confirm his honorary professorship at the state university. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about English name The English name of the subject is "Fu Jen-kun" and not "Fu Ren-kun". It would be worthwhile searching a bit more. Maybe this can be relisted --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat - OK I managed to find the Worldcat entry. I'm not very good at analysing it though. I also found what looks like the subject's personal website. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Lemongirl942. But the "Works" section should probably be removed per WP:LISTCRUFT, especially when little of it is in English. Timmyshin (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some source analysis, please? There are a ton of Russian and Chinese sources listed but it's not clear how they relate to the subject (if they're just authored by him, then it's an excessive bibliography). czar 21:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per being on the Russian wiki, and reciving award.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 14:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & move -- I found this book: Taiwan and the geopolitics of the Asian-American dilemma / Jen-kun Fu. Author: Fu, Jen-kun. Publication Information: New York : Praeger, 1992 & a review:

Book Review: Taiwan and the Geopolitics of the Asian-American Dilemma, by Wayne Patterson. Publication: Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, v533 (19940501): 193-194. Database: JSTOR Arts & Sciences VII Collection.

I see a few other books:

Xinjang-Uighur issue and its development by Jen-kun Fu
Taiwan and the geopolitics of Sino-American relations, 1972-1988
Dynamics of political and economical development in central Asia

On the balance of things, probably qualifies under WP:AUTHOR given the age of the books. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Cook (criminal)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP1E (he killed two people, and that's about it). The only sources I can find about him are regarding his execution. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some evidence is brought forward that the subject meets any criteria of WP:PERP. Reading through that notability guideline again, however, I am very not convinced he passes, and I also am unsure of any alternative content the biography could be merged into, except a quick mention at List of people executed in Georgia (U.S. state). Yvarta (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sources Here's what I found. Case of an unmotivated slaying of 2 random college students. Significant coverage in the big regional papers The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Florida Times-Union, first of the police search for a suspect, which went on for well over a year. Good detective work and public cooperation finally resulted in the arrest of Cook, whose father came to see him in jail. The jailed suspect confessed the drime to his Dad. Imagine that father's situation - the newspapers certainly did. Father reports what his son has confessed to - this is where the story really takes off. The father happened to be an FBI agent. Anti-death penalty groups argued that since Dad had not read the son's Miranda rights to him, his testimony was invalid. They appealed the Supreme Court of Georgia (U.S. state), which upheld the death penalty. All of these from a quick scan of the articles in those 2 newspapers. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an interesting case. I'm still leaning to think that the sources' content is focused such that the case itself, and not Mr. Cook, is what could pass the notability guidelines, as I would argue that Cook runs afoul of WP:ONEEVENT. Might you have thoughts on a good topic name for the crime/case itself, which the biography could be merged to? That way the key details could be kept. Yvarta (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know; I had never heard of the case until I found it here today.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree that it was an interesting case, with sufficient coverage of a non-routine kind to confer notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete No compliance with WP:Before. There are lots of sources out there, and this is a unique case and perpetrator. Fits WP:GNG. The decision to execute him was controversial. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I should not had created this articule in the first place. Ilovehorrorstories (User talk:Ilovehorrorstories) 13:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not widespread or sustained enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 04:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to WP:PERP, a convicted criminal is only suitable for a stand-alone article if "The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities" or "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role". Neither of these criteria are met. Furthermore, according to WP:1E, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role" - tens of thousands of people commit murder worldwide every year. There is no evidence this individual offender was exceptionally notable. AusLondonder (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've reconsidered. AusLondonder is (IMO) correct, and I am persuaded. Moreover, this article was created by a WP:Sock as appears here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I'm not overly convinced this is a sock account. I mean, a two-year-dead sock coming back to write an article and make minor disruptive edits? Even if is socking, there's no way to verify it. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong about that. If you go to the link the user admits he is sock. here. The admission removes any reasonable doubt. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could claim that I was a sock of User:Meloneras, but I would probably be laughed out of the room. They're indeffed, so I don't really care if they are a sock. My main point with bringing it up is that I don't think this qualifies for a G5 speedy. Primefac (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - focusing on whether a sock created this loses sight of the fact that it's a crappy stub about a marginally notable criminal. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was not focusing on it. I agree that it is not within a WP:GNG article and WP:PERP seems to control. The sock problem is part of the context, however. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per the request of the author below RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Atencio[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Non-noteable director of prisons in Idaho. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 04:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit I did not fully investigate beyond the one article I cited when I created the page. It appears he may not be notable. I give consent for this article to be speedy deleted. Icewedge (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I agree with the nominator that it may be difficult, if not impossible, to quantify exactly what qualifies as a Rohingya village, so this list veers dangerously close to WP:OR. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rohingya villages[edit]

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

This article has multiple serious issues, as the templates at the beginning explain it is completely unreferenced and possibly original research. This article also fails WP:LISTCRUFT as no actuall criteria is laid out for what exactly IS a Rohingya village? Is it a village with a Rohingya majority? A village were all the inhabitants are Rohingya? A village with mixed demographics? Villages that use to be Rohingya?

Also due to the ongoing persecution of the Rohingya many have fled, which means that many villages that were historically Rohingya might now be abandoned or occupied by other ethnic groups. There is no way to quantifiable access the population of Rohingya villages as they are not recognized by the Burmese government thus accurate population statistics are nearly impossible to come by. I also tired looking about ten of these villages up on google maps an most did not appear, which leeds me to doubt if they actually exist or are misnamed. Also this page was started by a series of IP editor(s) and each one 1, 2, 3, 4 have a troubled history on Wikipedia.

Lastly even if the WP:DINC argument comes up, I would argue that this article is still unfit to stand alone, if it is not deleted it should be merged with Rohingya villages. We don't have List of jewish villages pre-holocaust for example, that content is in larger articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article has already been nominated for deletion in the past, although at the time it has a different name (hence why I didn't notice it) as well as it was over eleven years ago. The previous deletion discussion can be seen here. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nomination. Phyo WP (message) 06:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research and fails WP:GNG anyway Spiderone 23:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Short cases of Clinical Medicine[edit]

Note: Page Short cases of Clinical Medicine moved to Short cases in Clinical Medicine

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

This article should be deleted as it does not meet WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. Three of the sources are not in English and the one English source is just a book listing. This means it fails WP:N as there are no verifiable reliable sources that indicate that this is a notable item, The other three sources do not make this article notable because using Google Translate the sources seem to be more about the book's author rather than the book itself. The only sources that come up for a google search of "Short cases of Clinical Medicine" are basically the same as reference #4. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC) KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Provisional redirect to ABM Abdullah, the author. However, I'm not convinced that article meets WP:AUTHOR and so should probably also be deleted — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 21:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to ABM Abdullah, the author. The notability criteria for academic and technical books is very different from WP:GNG. The textbook is published by a major academic publishing company, and is in its fifth edition. On the subcontinent, online lists of prescribed textbooks are all but nonexistent, so I can't prove that it's required reading at, say, Bangladesh's only medical university, where the author teaches, but common sense suggests the publisher wouldn't keep printing new editions if it weren't used at one or more educational institutions. The non-English sources that nom dismisses as "more about the book's author than the book itself" are about the author winning an award for the book from the apex body of all universities in Bangladesh, which shows the book is regarded as an important work.[11][12][13] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- But, noteability is not inherited. See WP:INHERITED. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  The book is notable per WP:TEXTBOOK, no one is claiming it inherits notability from anywhere else. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Page Short cases of Clinical Medicine moved to Short cases in Clinical Medicine --Worldbruce (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article contains little more than unverified promotional claims. There is no indication of coverage in reliable independent sources. Notability has not been established when judged against WP:NBOOK. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is obviously promotional "a well known and prestigious book". I am not sure ABM Abdullah created by the same account is notable either. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-From WP:TEXTBOOKS "most of the standards for mainstream books are inapplicable to the academic field because they would be too restrictive and would exclude articles on books that are worthy of notice. Again, common sense should prevail. In such cases, possible bases for a finding of notability include, in particular, whether the book is published by an academic press, how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media,[10] the number of editions of the book,.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently notable and probably written for promotional reasons. PriceDL (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After 25 days of discussing, no participant provided any reliable sources with significant coverage to prove WP:GNG. Also, the claim that the film was selected for preservation in a national archive is not backed with any evidence. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aika tappaa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Could not locate any significant coverage in reliable sources. Υπογράφω (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under the premise that Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and the absence of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. KDS4444 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ( I think it matches WP:NFILM: The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.) I added a reference and a link. In fi-wiki, this was discussed but kept, due to DVD distribution in highstreet stores, and the festival screening. --Tappinen (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Selection for preservation in a national archive is good enough. Effectively a certification by an independent WP:RS of its importance. See WP:NFILM#Other evidence of notability which expressly provides: "The film was selected for preservation in a national archive." [Emphasis added.] Lack of English language sources is WP:Systemic bias problem — and thus should not be dispositive — but does not effect its notability. No compliance with WP:Before. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it is difficult to search and translate sources for Finnish topics, Aika Tappaa does have an entry at fi.Wikipedia and has been selected for preservation in a national archive to meet WP:NF. We need to look harder, not delete because of that difficulty.And yes, in a quick look, I too feel WP:BEFORE was not followed. [14][15][16] Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 11:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

alt 1:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

alt2:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment - In my WP:BEFORE efforts, I found -- and discarded -- the sources that are being suggested as evidence of notability. Here's why:

[17] -- not a reliable source. It's a user-submitted review.
[18] -- not a reliable source. This is a sales listing in an online DVD store.
[19] -- this is a database entry. I don't see any evidence that it constitutes "preservation in a national archive". The info page for this site even states that not all the entries in this database are in their collection.

Υπογράφω (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I suggested in August, the FinnishWiki offers nothing better and my own searches are not finding anything of actual substance hence there's nothing to suggest this can be confirmed as independently notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are not great, but they seem factual and independent. The film has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anachronist (talk • contribs) 04:38, February 6, 2017 (UTC)

Hit A$$[edit]

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

Non-notable group, no applicable coverage, charts are individual businesses' charts, nothing resembling a national chart. Largoplazo (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus indicates the subject is notable and is not a content fork. Also, merging is not warranted due to the nature of the subject and its coverage. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 United States federal hiring freeze[edit]

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

Delete – We don't need a separate article for every paper the President signs… Topic is addressed at First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency#Government-wide hiring freeze and elsewhere. — JFG ^talk 09:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this is another redundant content fork. The topic is also discussed at Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump and Presidency of Donald Trump. Gfcvoice (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as author. This article is well referenced and already beyond stub size. The article is not a redundant content fork. It is consistent with Wikipedia:Summary_style. The information already in the article could not easily be folded into any of the above-mentioned articles (Trump presidency, timeline, 100 Days) that this one supposedly serves as a "fork" from without a loss of significant detail. If any of these higher level articles contained this level of detail on each action of the Trump presidency, they would quickly become bloated. Having narrowly defined articles to cover topics in depth is completely consistent with Wikipedia's summary style. The alternative is to remove these well-cited details entirely from Wikipedia. Maybe you just don't think this action is notable because "government hiring freezes" sound boring and bureaucratic to you, but this freeze has the potential to significantly affect the operations of the United States government. Just the fact that the action was one of the first undertaken in a new presidency should suggest notability.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of United States federal executive orders 13765 and above.--98.88.130.68 (talk) 01:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Only... it is not an executive order; it is a Presidential memorandum Peace, MPS (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bkwillwm. Seems reasonable to me to have a separate article for this (and for any executive orders, memos, etc.). — RockMFR 03:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Also, no valid deletion rationale is presented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has implications beyond the Trump presidency; has the potential to inform future articles about government reductions. We are keeping Executive Order "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States", and I think this article has the similar potential to be a well sourced "one stop shop" for information about a potentially confusing subject. Peace, MPS (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- FOLLOW UP OBSERVATION Note that the federal hiring freeze is not an executive order but is instead a Presidential Memorandum. ALSO, given the history of the Pokemon Test, I wonder if there should be a general article devoted to the Executive Action Memoranda of Donald Trump (EOs and PMs) of an administration and then give "controversial" executive actions their own "protest/reaction" articles. Compare to how we have Atlantic Hurricane Season articles that list ALL hurricanes for that year, but then create separate articles only for those hurricanes that are notable. Peace, MPS (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. And we already have List of executive actions by Donald Trump covering EOs and memoranda. — JFG ^talk 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but... that "list" makes no attempt to summarize the content of each executive action. The hurricane articles at least give details about what the smaller hurricanes did. Besides, there is no simple summary of the hiring freeze at this point. As the article currently stands, it is clear that the consequences of this memo are still unfolding and making news. I think as long as there is significant confusion and lack of clarity, this hiring freeze will continue to attract journalists' attention. Peace, MPS (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - No deletion rationale. Jdcomix (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete or Merge - With all due respect to others here, I'm not really getting why this can be kept other than some subjective or naive views that "all presidential memos should have a separate articles." The media attention on this (relative to everything else on Trump) is fairly low and not much have been followed since the memo was signed. It may be justified to restart the article if this have some significant effects in the coming weeks, but this is not the time yet. Content is good and complete, but it can be fittingly merged into other articles like the First 100 days of Donald Trump's presidency#Government-wide hiring freeze with ease. --AsianHippie (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since you voted a "strong" delete, I'll pick your response to request clarification as to why this should be deleted. As several others have posted in "keep" statements, no rationale for deletion has actually been presented. The sentiment from the deletionists is that not all EOs or presidential memorandum deserve articles, which is fine, but why should this memorandum not have an article? I haven't heard a specific reason. There's already enough press coverage to create a full, cited article. Why delete the material? Why try to fold it into the "100 days" article? You imply that it is speculative to let this have its own article now, but you have no problem suggesting that it be merged into the "100 days" article even when we're only 10 days into the arbitrary 100. I honestly don't understand the deletionist mentality here: The subject is notable; There are enough sources to flesh out the article; Others have taken the initiative to create the article; What's the point of deleting it? We've already wasted more resources discussing the article than it would take to maintain it, so the maintenance argument does not really stand. I'm sincerely at a loss of understanding.--Bkwillwm (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The usual standard for an EO to have its own article looks pretty stringent: for example, out of 276 orders signed by Barack Obama over 8 years, only 6 have an individual article (2%), including 4 about the sensitive Guantanamo Bay issue. Many of these articles have remained one-paragraph stubs for several years: Executive Order 13491, Executive Order 13492, Executive Order 13567. Sure, there's a lot of media attention currently focusing on every action of the new President, but most of these orders can be treated properly in the main articles purporting to their subject matter. I dare say that such a consolidated presentation is more informative to our readers, instead of being scattered among many articles which repeat each other. For a policy backing of this stance, which is in no way deletionist, see WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. — JFG ^talk 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the defining characteristic for inclusion in Wikipedia is sufficient WP:RS thereby satisfying content policies (WP:V, WP:NOT, WP:NOR) and WP:GNG. So, it seems to me, the standard for a Wikipedia article about an executive order is - if there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. I don't know how that correlates to lack of executive order coverage (270 EOs??) in the Obama Administration - other than they didn't generate enough press for a Wikipedia article to be worthwhile. Or no one bothered to create an article.---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the claimed "policies backing this stance" are actually guidelines, just for clarification. Additionally, although some stub Executive Order articles are mentioned above, this article (under discussion) has gone past "stub" on its own merits. This might be later in the conversation after this article was only stub, so that comment might be after the fact - I don't know. That sure is interesting those EO articles are only stubs - and I am guessing there is a purpose for that. And whatever the intent, I like the idea. But, not necessarily for this article. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Steve's responses, but JFG is just leaving me more confused. I don't see any evidence of an existing policy on EOs. How does the continued existence of three Obama EO stubs justify the deletion of a Trump EO? JFG links to the policies WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:AVOIDSPLIT. JFG, have you actually looked at these pages? They only seem to bolster the argument for inclusion. "PAGEDECIDE" says a page shouldn't be split when context is necessary or when sufficient sources are not available. Clearly sufficient reliable sources are available, so what "context" is lost in splitting this article? Why is it necessary to view this as part of Trump's first 100 days? The policy has ramifications for government functions and the economy beyond the political context in the 100 days article. "AVOIDSPLITS" only has two points: the article must be notable and it shouldn't be POV fork. I haven't seen an argument on either point. Are there actually grounds for deletion beyond throwing up ilinks to WP:BS and making up policies about EOs that are contradicted by the very EO articles you reference, JFG? --Bkwillwm (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a content fork that could be well handled on a Trump presidency page, the timeline, first 100 days, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Serious question for you: How can it be a Wikipedia:content fork when you list 3 + etc Trump-related topics that treat this topic with at best one sentence? Doesn't saying it is a "content fork" imply it could be merged back into a single article? Which article would you suggest? And how much of the content do you think should be deleted versus merged? Edited to add: There are entirely legitimate reasons to spin out an article on a notable subject, especially if the content can stand alone. Peace, MPS (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - standard and non-notable legislation which doesn't have the legs to stand as an independent article. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- it is not legislation; it is a Presidential memorandum Peace, MPS (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The topic ~~coverage~~ is excellent, including the background section. This is a notable topic that satisfies WP:GNG as evinced by the (WP:RS) reliable sources available that cover this topic. It doesn't matter if it is a memo or an executive order. This topic is having a significant impact that affects millions of federal employees, would be employees, and possibly supply chain businesses. Also, the article seems to have been significantly improved since the AfD discussion has been open. I don't think that coverage of this topic in other already bloated Trump articles will be sufficient. I also don't think coverage in other overview articles will be sufficient such as "Trump's first 100 days" article. As an aside, as has been pointed out, no rationale for delete or merge was provided with opening of the discussion. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all presidential memoranda should have an article; many would fit as a section or paragraph in a broader article. However, this article is sourced enough and long enough to merit its own article, and the memorandum's topic does not fit into a larger preexisting article. Also, note that the article has been significantly expanded since this AfD bgan. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage in RSes satisfies WP:GNG and more is coming. The depth of coverage in the article would be lost in a merge to some more general topic. Gab4gab (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper - not every topic in the news needs a content fork. This topic should be covered elsewhere. AusLondonder (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:NOTNEWS. JFG's comments above on other EO articles swayed me, I see no issues with merging this article into any of the other articles suggested above.LM2000 (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unlike Plan to Defeat the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, and like EO 13769, this is a real thing, and one that is getting serious ongoing coverage, see, e.g., an essay in the current The New Yorker by James Surowiecki. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable independent topic backed up by reliable and verifiable sources that support the claim of notability. This should be mentioned in other articles relating to the so-called Trump presidency, with this as the main article. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The sources cited in this article substantiate its notability, and the article provides sufficient depth/detail to warrant a standalone article per WP:PAGEDECIDE. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not necessarily as a standalone page, but certainly the content belongs somewhere. Merge/redirects can be discussed later, if desired. Neutrality^talk 00:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage in RSes satisfies WP:GNG - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic, and of course the sources already cited satisfy notability. Unscintillating (talk) 02:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – Meets WP:GNG and qualifies as a valid standalone article. This is certainly not a content fork, particularly because source coverage of the topic is not based upon the premise of Trump's first 100 days as president or the premise of the general topic of Trump's presidency in and of itself. Rather, sources have covered and analyzed this particular topic itself in various forms based upon its inherent thesis and its myriad effects and repurcussions. The nominator herein states that the topic is addressed in other articles, but the content in those articles summarizes the topic, rather than providing in-depth and comprehensive coverage of it, whereas this article is well-developed. In addition to the sources provided in the article, the topic continues to receive sustained coverage right up to this very day. See below for examples of recent coverage about this topic. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Federal News Radio. February 13, 2017.
Federal News Radio. February 13, 2017.
The Hill. February 13, 2017.
The Washington Post. February 10, 2017.
Alaska Public Media. February 10, 2017.
Federal News Radio. February 10, 2017.
Society for Human Resource Management. February 10, 2017.
The Atlantic. February 9, 2017.
Stars and Stripes. February 8, 2017.
Flathead Beacon. February 8, 2017.
The Huffington Post. February 6, 2017.
Santa Fe New Mexican. February 3, 2017.
CNBC. February 2, 2017.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Some users herein have stated that the depth of coverage is insufficient and that the topic does not meet notability guidelines, while others have stated that the topic meets notability guidelines and provided some source examples. There was some discussion about sources, with arguments and counter-arguments, but much of this is opinion-based (e.g. "... strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject...", "Gizmodo is a largely known host of PR...", "Oh really? Who exactly decided this? You seem to believe everything is a host of PR"). In addition to the sources presented in the discussion, one of the users opining for retention also referred to "...other coverage" to qualify their stance, but did not present said coverage. Of note is that a user opining for deletion stated that the article comprises "spam", but others did not concur with this notion or state that the article functions as an advertisement. Another user opining for deletion refers to this topic as a company and as an organization, qualifying deletion in part by citing WP:CORPDEPTH criteria that is applicable toward organizations. However, this topic is not an organization; it's a mobile app, which is a software product and the thesis of the article. While WP:CORPDEPTH is applicable toward products, it is possible for a topic to meet WP:GNG while simultaneously not meeting the subject-specific criteria of WP:CORPDEPTH, and again, this is a product, not an organization or company. Also, as a sidenote, note that WP:PRODUCT states "Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right." Overall, the discussion is mildly leaning toward a deletion outcome, but ultimately a no consensus closure is the most accurate close relative to the discourse that has transpired herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JotterPad[edit]

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

Nothing actually genuine for independent notability and substance as the listed sources are only announcements, listings and mentions with none of it satisfying our pillar policies; there's also no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone. SwisterTwister talk 18:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Washington Post did review it [20]. Gizmodo listed it as one of the "Essential Apps" of the month. Dream Focus 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"One of essential app or the month" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That essay has nothing to do with this at all. Also the article was from February of 2015. Dream Focus 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also note that Gizmodo is a largely known host of PR so especially such a triviality as "One of the month" is hardly convincing. The one WP review would still make it thin. SwisterTwister talk 22:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? Who exactly decided this? You seem to believe everything is a host of PR. Do you honestly believe there is a chance they took money somehow to put them on the list? Dream Focus 03:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I think the WaPo, Gizmodo and other coverage gives enough inherent notability, but the tone needs some reworking and it needs expansionSouth Nashua (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Companies need to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and I do not see enough sources to satisfy it here. The Gizmodo source is an inclusion in a list of similar items which is considered trivial coverage for purposes of CORPDEPTH. That leaves the WashingtonPost which is in itself a very brief review. This doesn't add up to the level of indepth coverage required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coverage of this app wouldn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For example

Gizmodo - Coverage in a list of similar apps. According to our guideline, inclusion in lists of similar organizations is considered trivial coverage.
Washington Post - Short review and not enough on its own
Other sources such as Fastcompany, NYT - all of these are lists of similar apps and not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH.

Other than these, there don't seem to be any reliable sources available and it seems like this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources you listed are clearly dated 2015 in their links. Also Too Soon is just an essay, and not relevant here. That concerns covering things that don't exist yet. Dream Focus 01:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, my main argument is that the coverage doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For a company, in-depth coverage is required. (Brief coverage in a list of similar items is not useful for WP:CORPDEPTH). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Struse (surname)[edit]

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

Looks like an unsourced genealogy Fails WP:V and WP:GNG. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability; unreferenced; this use of genealogy borders on WP:NOTWEBHOST. And yet, WMF tells me we need a new wikitext-interface because coding is too difficult for new users. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, this content is not suitable for the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We often use articles on surnames as a list or quasi-disambiguation page (see WP:APONOTE), but this doesn't seem appropriate in this case considering that we only have one entry on a person named Struse (Nicole Struse). The current content appears to be WP:OR and although deletion is not cleanup there doesn't seem to be much chance of verifying this information with reliable independent sources. I couldn't find any sources on the origins or history of the name apart from the usual mass of genealogy SPSs. It's probably just an Ellis Island-misspelling of Strauss. – Joe (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article could be rehabilitated as a biography of Edward Struse, but as an article about a surname, this doesn't meet GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable and no RS citations for text. Kierzek (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOWBALL Delete, Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OR on a NN subject. If there is a notable person of this surname, he should have an article in his own name. If there are several, this could survive (or be re-created) as a list article, for which there are lots of precedents, but we cannot keep this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is not a single source in any of these articles that is not a clear WP:PRIMARY source. Claims therefore noted below that the seasons pass WP:EVENT are entirely unsubstantiated. There is no indication that these seasons have received significant, reliable, third party coverage as a season rather than a synthesis of match reports. Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous as that guideline is concerned solely with college teams, not their competitions. Simply put, with no indication of GNG, these articles are clear WP:NOTSTATS failures. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 America East Conference men's soccer season[edit]

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." which also results in failures of WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NOPAGE. Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements.

Existing consensus already achieved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, which are identical situations.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasoning as above:

– GauchoDude (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. GauchoDude is right, this sort of coverage should be developed in the main article first until it becomes clear that it can stand alone. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a waste of time and resources to nominate. On the contrary, meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT because of reliable sources and third party sources. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: There is clear consensus for related articles that, despite your repeated objections, this does not satisfy notability criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there might be a consensus in your head. However, there is no valid criticism that it doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Might as well remove all the college basketball and college football conference season articles while you're on a bloodlust purge. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Quidster4040, in his objection, has removed the AfD template on the following articles:

2016 America East Conference men's soccer season as you can see here
2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season as you can see here
2016 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as you can see here

– GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles are well developed and satisfy WP:EVENT. I don't see the issue. And to those who say it should be developed in the main article, this is the main article. The prior AfDs were for tournaments, which are part of the season and arguably should be part of the season article itself. That argument doesn't fly in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: Per your opinion, @Smartyllama:, which criteria of WP:EVENT does it satisfy? The inclusion criteria are, as defined by WP:EVENTCRITERIA, are a WP:LASTING effect, a large WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH of coverage, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. For me, none of those are met, but to the contrary this seems WP:ROUTINE. I find it difficult to fathom that individual seasons would be worthy of stand-alone articles when the sport doesn't have one (similar to the tournament and the America East Conference page doesn't even have a section on the entire sport's history. GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - season not tournament. Seems notable enough. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: @Nfitz: appreciate the feedback here. Can you elaborate on "Seems notable enough" and how you arrived to that conclusion? Up above (to User:Smartyllama), I noted the WP:EVENTCRITERIA for which I'm having trouble justifying inclusion. Would be interested to hear your take on these and which you feel is(/are?) met. Thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GauchoDude: WP:NSEASONS defines when for college sports teams, an individual season for the top collegiate level is notable. Surely then it goes without saying that the season article for the entire league is notable! Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think it's time to close the debate. There's a clear consensus that the article should be kept. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - don't need season articles for college soccer. Giant Snowman 08:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not GiantSnowman? We have season article for other college sports such as ice hockey, baseball, football and basketball. There's no legitimate reason to invalidate soccer? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John and Elvis Are Dead[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, nor has it been established in the content of the article. It did not chart. It has not won any awards. It is simply a song on an album. Kellymoat (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep incorrect statement from nom, this is a single by George Michael, the article explains why it was the final single of the album and why it was not released as the other five. This particular personal song also had various mentions in newspapers across Europe in the days following GM's recent death. A constructive editor could pick a couple to add. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also: It would also be rather strange for this to be the only single on the Twenty Five (album) greatest hits 2CD to not have an article. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be more accurate, the article says that it is ineligible for the UK Charts (because it was a download). But it wasn't ineligible for charts everywhere else. Therefore, no, it did not chart. Kellymoat (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeKeep The song was released as a single. Plain and simple GM25LIVE (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So it exists but how does that make it notable.Peter Rehse (talk) 15:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeThe song has a music video, played live during concert tours and included in two GM albums: Patience and SymphonicaGM25LIVE (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every night, at every concert, every artist sings 40 songs live in concert. Do all 40 songs from every artist need their own page? Why is this song so special that it needs an article? Kellymoat (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strike~~It does establish a notability when a song being played live in concert tours. I don't believe that artists perform unworthy songs during their concert tours~~ GM25LIVE (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sock strikeKeep- The song was included in the artist's Greatest Hits compilation. Faithtour (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Patience (George Michael album). No significant coverage. Arguments that it is notable because it is a single or sung on tour are not valid. P.S. Notable and unworthy are not antonyms. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -As one of the 25 songs on the Greatest Hists compilation, it is notable. It was also discussed in a couple of his biographies as well as the news articles mentioned above by In ictu oculi ABF99 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm just looking at those Dutch and Italian sources. It may well have seen a surge in attention to this song because of Michael's own death, but the second page of News hits are mentioning the video before his death. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already cast a vote for this artice?Kellymoat (talk) 12:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 10:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Hotshot[edit]

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

Article was created by a sockpuppet of the subject (Shane Kelly a.k.a. Tha Hotshot). Appears to be a non-notable rapper who won some non-notable regional awards. Not a single one of the cited sources constitutes significant coverage by an independent source. They're all directory listings or primary sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; his biggest hit has a few thousand views on Youtube, no major record label signing or album, no WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anjan Dutt. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ami ar Godot[edit]

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

Seems to be failing WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anjan Dutt - plausible search term Spiderone 20:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article has been created twice (see Ami Aar Godot) Spiderone 20:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks for pointing it out. Obviously, I am extending my XfD request to cover this duplicate too. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:HEAP and WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Media News[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's general notability guidelines and WP:NORG. I find lots of stuff by them but nothing about them. Most of the claims of significance are now marked as failing verification. This is a strategy often used by undisclosed paid promotional editors to get their articles to 'stick'. Jbh ^Talk 01:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A radio programming service doesn't get a Wikipedia article the moment it becomes possible to nominally verify that it exists; it gets an article when it's substantively the subject of media coverage about it. But of the three sources here, one is the founder's own primary source biography on the website of her principal employer, one is a glancing namecheck of the service's existence in a press release about Lord Dampnut's meeting itinerary for January 25, and the third is a glancing namecheck of the service's existence in the captions to a couple of soundbites in a mass survey of the entire White House press corps — so the two sources that are independent aren't substantive, and I'm not finding anything on a Google News search that supports notability more solidly. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Per the HighBeam search there are numerous references to the company providing sole radio coverage of the US President roughly every 10 days, which is consistent with the size of the radio contingent of the White House press corps. By its very nature, however, pool coverage is circulated internally among outlets covering the president and audio and notes gathered by the pool are often used by newsrooms without attribution. In the White House briefing room, the company now occupies the back-row left seat of Talk Radio News Service, which no longer operates a website. Both firms were founded by Ellen Ratner and appear to have similar business models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercuryblued (talk • contribs) 22:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No in depth coverage in independent sources. 331dot (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khuong Huu Loc[edit]

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

Biography seemingly written by a family member. Lacks reliable independent sources of substance. No indication that the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO. WWGB (talk) 01:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tagged this for an A7 delete, and then found that the page writer removed the AFD notice. Note this was deleted with A7 and A11 before, but the promotional tone is now reduced. However I still find a lack of any claims of importance. His father deserves an article, but this topic does not appear to ahve the references to show any notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only suitable for a job listing of which we're not a webhost. SwisterTwister talk 21:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS 0036+1821[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Regards— ~ The Infi nite Space X 19:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Criterion 3 of WP:NASTRO recognizes notability if there is non-trivial coverage of an astronomical object in multiple published works. I searched NASA's Astrophysics Data System for mentions of this star in the academic literature, and to my surprise, I found that it is mentioned by name in the abstracts of 9 separate papers. I must confess that I haven't read these papers, but it is clear from their abstracts that this object has received non-trivial coverage in multiple journal articles. Thus, it passes WP:NASTRO. Here is my search query, along with the results. Astro4686 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is quite clearly non-trivial coverage of the subject. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2MASS 1507-1627[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NASTRO. No references, no claims to notability. Regards— ~ The Infinite Space X 18:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. WP:NASTRO recognizes notability if an astronomical object has received non-trivial coverage from multiple published works. I searched NASA's Astrophysics Data System to see whether this object has received attention in the scholarly literature. It is mentioned in 3 abstracts, two of which are refereed papers. The third is a paper from a conference. Of the two refereed papers, one clearly examines it in detail, but in the other, it's just one of 14 objects studied. It's a close call, but I think that this is just barely enough to satisfy WP:NASTRO. Here is my search query, along with the results. Astro4686 (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, it's weak, but I'd consider this sufficiently non-trivial coverage. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Find some sources. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Oparah[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Actress in Dr Who who started acting in 2016. Very minor as yet. 5-10 years may be different. Fails WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how the notability guidelines for entertainers apply, but if "multiple" can mean appearing in more more than one episode of a notable TV production, I would lean to keep.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- She plays a main character of a Spin-off of the world's longest running Science Fiction series (Doctor Who). I do not think this is not very minor and she should be notable. --Dynara23 (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yip, your right Dynara23, it is a spin off show. Notability is not inherited, so the fact that it is spin off is neither here nor there. How many times she has appeared in show, is neither here nor there either. scope_creep (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I think through Doctor Who this series will still be talked of in many coming years. Doctor Who is just so big and it exists since 1963. It is the the same with other official Spin Offs like K-9 and Company, a series, where only the pilot was released and even now (40 years later) many people get to know this pilot, because it is linked to Doctor Who (DVDs, audio books etc. to the series were released decades after). I think this is not to be underrated, I think even in 10, 20, 40,... years there will be people interested in the main actors of this series (maybe more than in other actors of other series who are successful now as well). And now Vivian Oparah is also mentioned a lot in the media. I do not see why she should not be relevant. --Dynara23 (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A google news search yields a number of articles on the subject. Nevertheless, a call for further improvement of the article and references should be placed on the talk page. Zombalu (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock !vote above has been struck. Lepricavark (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ive been watching Dr Who since 70-71, but I feel in this case, brand new actress. Is it just a case of turning up and getting an article. There needs to be some value in notability. scope_creep (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Katz[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG. Does not appear to have won important awards, have a significant following, have considerable coverage etc - any of the things that would be considered vital to establish notability. Rayman60 (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing with no prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein. Despite the lengthy commentary, it only occurred between the nominator and one user opining for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oswalt[edit]

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

Being someone's brother is not a path to notability and while he may have had an extensive career, he fails to meet the criteria in WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:N. The article lacks WP:SECONDARY support and does not have significant in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wrote this on the original talk page when asked to defend the page, so I am going to just copy and paste it here -

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

(Matt Oswalt is the brother of one of the most famous comedians in America, but has also had a notable career all on his own. He has produced a number of series featuring the biggest names in comedy, including the late Robin Williams, and is continuing to do so. He has attended award shows nobody other than those at the peak of fame are able to attend. I find it incredibly hasty to just delete this page, which is credibly sourced by a number of highly reputable sources including The AV Club, SplitSider, MSN, HuffPo, and MTV. If this does not meet notability standards, I'm not sure how much more success this guy would need to have in order to do so.--PaulTheAirplane (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please tell us how he meets any of the criteria in WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:N.

Being someone's brother is not a reason to be that included in Wikipedia.
Being a producer is also not a path to inclusion.
Attending award supports nothing in the Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.
The references are not in-depth or significant to support inclusion. reddogsix (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Importance

First and foremost, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to make the claim that his brother is what makes him notable. He has undeniable success all on his own and has worked within the comedy community alongside important figures for years and years as a contemporary, and not as a tag-along brother of a more famous sibling.

As well, I'm not saying he has merely been a producer. He has rather been a "showrunner" if you will, appearing onscreen in each episode of his Puddin' Strip program, which, again, featured a large number of comedians and actors that have all been deemed "notable" enough for Wikipedia with careers highly similar to the one Matt Oswalt has had. WP:ENTERTAINER

Furthermore, your outright dismissal of the sources is rather unhelpful. I've included 14 separate articles that all comfortably pass the threshold of credibility, a number of which do indeed speak *at length* about his work and career. These are not personal blogs I am citing. These are industry publications like AV Club, SplitSider, Huffington Post, MTV, Salon, and Complex. He's appeared on highly notable programs on basic cable alongside highly notable public figures for years and years. That alone qualifies as "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." WP:SIGCOV. It's also proof that this is not "temporary" notability. WP:NOTTEMPORARY

As of now, it seems rather obvious we aren't going to come to an agreement, because you, RedDogSix, seem to have made up your mind immediately, and obviously I want this article kept because I wrote it. But upon referring to the edit history, user Ritchie333 also deemed this notable enough to remove the initial speedy deletion tag. If nothing else, It would be incredibly unfair for the fate of this article to rest in RedDogSix's hands because he has a clear bias which as of yet has not been reflected by anybody else. This user is the only person proposing a deletion. It is crucial that we get other opinions before making a decision.

But to be honest, and I've stated why, this doesn't even meet the criteria for deletion, let alone SPEEDY deletion. That's simply hasty and unproductive.

And as a last note, I want to state that I do not know Matt Oswalt personally. I have interacted with him perhaps twice on the internet, and I consider myself a fan. He does not know who I am, of this I am sure, so the tag about "having a close connection" is false and should be removed. --PaulTheAirplane (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lets see if I can address your comments:

When an article mentions in the first paragraph, "... [he is] best known for being the younger brother of comedian Patton Oswalt," that sure implies his Wikipedia notability is based on his brother.

You cite WP:ENTERTAINER; however the individual fails to meet the criteria in that notability guideline.

The references you have provided do not provide in-depth coverage, they are little le more than passing mentions.

You have misinterpreted Ritchie333 removal of the CSD, the bar to remove a A7 is relatively low and does not insure the notability of the article. Ritchie333 Was only indicating an A7 was not appropriate, and did not comment on overall appropriateness of keeping the article.

You say I have made up my mind about the article, you are correct in that I have given my opinion the subject does not have adequate referential support to warrant an article, not if the article should survive if adequate references were to be found. If you want the article to survive, I suggest you provide adequate references, without better referencing, it will probably be deleted.

No one has said you know the article subject; however, if you have been in contact with him as indicated by the picture, it shows there may be a conflict of interest. reddogsix (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you say he doesn't meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER. While I find that criteria all a matter of opinion anyway, allow me to explain why I feel he fits. By the numbers, he has 118,000 unique followers on a verified account who frequently interact, myself included. I consider this an instance of having "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following."

As for his having "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment," his work has been covered extensively by SplitSider, Salon, Huffington Post, Complex, MSN, and The AV Club. These articles are not just passing mentions as you inaccurately claim. And whereas the other articles are perhaps from slightly less notable publications, he is still the subject of them and not just merely mentioned. Topics covered in these articles include two programs he created, wrote, produced, and appeared in - both of which had appearances by A-list celebrities like Alyssa Milano and Robin Williams. His work with Jash is both notable and his most recent work.

I'd say that also qualifies him for him having "Had had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."

So, in terms of WP:Entertainer he comfortably clears the bar. That was the only thing you had issue with in my initial rebuttal.

I'll say it again, I'm not sure how much more you want. I really don't know how much more notable he could be. It's almost as if you are punishing him BECAUSE he is Patton Oswalt's brother. If that were not the case, I highly doubt you'd be questioning his notability.

I'll also say again that I sure hope we get a second opinion here, because if this gets deleted due to your personal opinion and your opinion alone, that's very unfair and undemocratic. --PaulTheAirplane (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

118K in followers only shows he may be popular, being popular does not evoke or prove Wikipedia based notability. This is not a cult following.

There appears to be nothing unique about his contributions to the industry, this not a judgmental statement, so take a deep breath. 8-). Please show which of the "references" are significant, in-depth discussions.

I see no significant roles in multiple venues.

Again, he fails to meet WP:ENT.

I have no interest in if he has a brother or not. Please assume good faith

AfDs run for 7 days or more and if there is no additional comments the AfD will be closed as undecided and the article will be kept. Be assured this is a community project and the admin closing the take into consideration the number and substance of the comments. reddogsix (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2004 VTV International Women's Volleyball Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Philippine National Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Delete including the 2011 edition, as per WP:TNT. Content is only external links and venue listing and widely unsourced. But the vent is far from being non-notable, its a nationwide competition organized by the Olympic Committee of the country.--Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1977 William Jones Memorial Cup[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

Strong Oppose the William Jones Cup is one of the major friendly competitions in Asia.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada at the FIBA 3x3 World Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Fails WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Eggheads (TV series). no participant in this debate even tried to provide some reliable sources to show she passes WP:GNG. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Thiel[edit]

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

Non-notable quiz contestant. Participation in a game show does not confer notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The first point to note is that the she is only notable for being an "Egghead" on the quiz show Eggheads (TV series). Secondly, the term "contestant" is perhaps confusing since the "Eggheads" are a permanent feature, the other team being one-off contestants. The other Eggheads and ex-Eggheads, with the exception of two recent additions (September 2016), all have their own pages and some of them are only really notable for being an Egghead. The main downside is that there doesn't seem to be much to say about her. "Expecting her second child, a boy" and her twitter feed, hardly encyclopedic stuff. Interestingly she's sufficiently annoying to one person, who's carried on a long campaign to vandalise the Eggheads page and now the Lisa Thiel page too. Nigej (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, not particularly notable, and not enough hits when googling in Web search engines. Absinthia Stacy 13 (talk) 10:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eggheads (TV series), where she is already listed quite properly as a regular panel member. Eustachiusz (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable gameshow contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the nominator withdrawing in a comment at the end of the discussion, no consensus for a particular outcome has occurred herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure comment added per this discussion: I was going to change my 'weak delete' stance to 'keep' based on the convincing sources added at the end of the discussion, prior to the comment withdrawing this article from deletion nomination, but I came back to the discussion after it had already been closed. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karina Smigla-Bobinski[edit]

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

Let's set aside this clearly a promotional entry written by a person with WP:COI (red flags: User:Paula perissinotto, and mentioned by subject at [21]: "curators Ricardo Barreto and Paula Perissinotto ", also as usual - WP:SPA). The main problem is that the coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. I tried looking for sources, but they all seem low key. There is no in-depth coverage of her, through there are plenty mentions in passing, but much of it is blogs, etc. She seem not to have won any awards, or received coverage which would make her pas WP:ARTIST. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems that the references aren't really independent of the subject; predominantly they are coverage by galleries where this artist has exhibited. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - very poor sourcing for a biography of a living person. All the red links makes be suspicious. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the sources after the last major revision (thank you, anonymous IP, for doing that), I'm starting to lean away from 'delete' so I have changed it to 'weak delete'. Per my comment below, there is some significant independent coverage of this artist's exhibits, but not of the artist herself. So this is looking borderline, possibly WP:TOSOON. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable artist who has had lots of prominent gigs and recignition. The artilce itslef is terrible and needs to be rewritten, but that has nothing to do with notability. I'll see what refs I can dig up. COI has no particular bearing on deletion. it's notability that counts, and it is here in this article. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 08:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have cleaned up the article, and converted all refs to inline. She is notable without a doubt, on the basis of being widely cited in good quality sources. It took some time also to check the references in German, Spanish and Polish and put them in their proper place. I deleted two entire secitons that were just uncited lists of accomplishments. I will tag the article for COI, as it was obviously an involved person who created it. Pinging @Bearian @Anachronist @Piotrus to have a second look at it, now that it's readable. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 09:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your cleanup. Could you list here and discuss the sources you consider best, and you think justify her inclusion in the encyclopedia? Personally I find that the best sources are the articles in some museums that she had her exhibitions at, namely de:LWL-Industriemuseum ([22]) and Museum of Transitory Art ([23]); through none of those is major enough for anyone to bother with English Wikipedia article yet; neither does Fact (charity) ([24]) seems significant. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent over an hour, maybe two, improving the article. Your nomination is unfortunately weak and if you look at the places she has shown, and some WP:BEFORE would see that there are lots of sources. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  I am struggling to find in that list of sources, any that are significant, reliable, and independent. I've gone through them all. After removing from consideration the blogs (not reliable), trivial mentions, and articles by museums and exhibitions (not independent of the subject), I am left with only three that may be reliable and independent: Star2, We Make $$$, and germany.info — but those articles aren't about the artist, they are about specific exhibits. I'm willing to strike my delete vote above, but I must say I am not seeing anything yet that qualifies as significant, reliable, and independent coverage of this artist. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, delete it then. I am begining to see Wikipedia as a huge sexist machine, as widely reported in the press. 104.163.150.250 (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If it makes you feel any better, you can help find articles on non-notable male artists and nominate them for deletion. I would be happy to help. You can also log in and ask for this article to e moved to your sandbox. As I noted, this may be the case of WP:TOOSOON: the artist may not be notable now, but could become more notable in few years and your work could be improved and restored at that time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  What, exactly, is "sexist" about Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion? Don't blame Wikipedia for an artist's failure to meet the criteria; and that applies regardless of the artist's gender. And besides, I've deleted many articles about artists (mostly musical artists) and nearly 100% of them have been about male artists. What does that tell you? ~Anachronist (talk)
Delete as apparently no museum collections or major art reviews which is what would've established notability. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please state which ones affect establishing notability as our notability criteria for artists in having museum collections or major art reviews, and these are stated as so. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Artists such as Karina Smigla-Bobinski create works that are often not perceived as "collectible" by museums & institutions because of their ephemeral, dematerialized or performative nature. These practices, like Conceptual art of past decades, may disqualify (or ghettoize?) certain artists from traditional encyclopedic standards of notability. One hopes in the near future that the criteria for artists' notability are revised in relation to 21st century practices. There are many art worlds; not solely the institutional art world of museum collections and commercial galleries, which are biased towards promoting and collecting male artists due to the subjective economics of collectability based on "market value," and political bodies such as boards of trustees private interests. SwisterTwister and others, please click on NEWS above - and you will see that there are credible news sources reviewing her work: Le Journal de Quebec Business Insider, Vancouver Sun, E-Flux, Calgary Herald, and others. Click on BOOKS and also on SCHOLAR above, and see how many books and journal entries there are on this artist before dismissing their notability. Netherzone (talk) 00:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collectible is not necessary. Those ephemeral works can still generate media coverage, and artists can still be written about by reliable media. If they are not, however, than it is not Wikipedia's place to promote them. Also, I've taken a look at [25] and I am not impressed: 1st, her own conference paper, 2nd and 3rd, passing coverage of 1-2 sentences in each paper (2 captions in [26], 1 sentence in [27]), others don't seem to have more. As far as scholar, at least, I don't see anything approaching significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: If you believe Wikipedia's current notability standards for artists are insufficient, then by all means open up a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) and gain consensus for a change. AFD is not the venue for discussing the merits of our notability guidelines. Our job here is to determine whether a subject meets current inclusion criteria as they stand. If the guideline changes to cause artists like this to merit Wikipedia articles more easily, then this article can always be restored if it has been deleted prior to the guideline changing. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient substance to pass WP:Artist or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - The Acid Test Artmegeddon: WP:Artist
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Pass.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Pass. Sole example of an artist creating a large-scale, inflatable, participatory, low-impact, drawing machine.
- The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Pass – see below.
- The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument. Fail as per genre and intent of ephemeral, performative, participatory new media art. (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition. Pass as per numerous international exhibitions at the Venice Bienalle; Singapore Art Museum; Nottingham Castle Museum & Art Gallery, UK; Suwon IPARK Museum of Art, South Korea; BOZAR Centre for Fine Arts, Brussels; ZiF Center for Interdisciplinary Research Bielefeld University's Institute for Advanced Study; Grande Halle de la Villette (Museum) Paris; Kunsthalle an Hamburger Platz, Berlin; CURRENTS Festival - 6th Santa Fe International New Media Festival in Silicon Valley; WRO Media Art Biennale in Wroclaw (Poland); F I L E - Electronic Language International Festival, Curitiba, Brazil; Microwave International New Media Arts Festival Hong Kong; Museum of Transitory Art Ljubljana / Slovenia Supported by the Culture Programme of the European Union; PDC Participatory Design Conference in Namibia; ROBOT – Digital Paths Into Music And Arts – Int. Festival, Bologna / Italy; MSGSÜ Tophane-i Amire Culture and Arts Center in Istanbul / Turkey; Center of Applied Art Center of Innovations; Garage Center for Contemporary Culture, Moscow, Russia; AltArt Foundation Romania; 2012 ZERO1 BIENNIAL; FACT Foundation for Art and Creative Technology, Liverpool; among others. (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Pass as per publications in: WIRED Magazine, The Atlantic (magazine); TANZ Magazin; Imperica Media And Arts Magazine; Le Journal de Quebec; Business Insider; Vancouver Sun; E-Flux; Calgary Herald; Emiliano Causa > book “Invasión Generativa” - “Generative Invasion”; Neural (Journal) #47 "Art in the age of neurological reproduction", OVERS!ZE - The Mega Art & Installations (Book); The New Collectors Book; BBC News Channel. In good faith, people, and I know it's a primary source, but do see the links on the artist’s website: http://smigla-bobinski.com/english/about/Bibliography.html and CV: http://smigla-bobinski.com/english/about/cv.html Netherzone (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I have to disagree. Your first two passes are uncited, for the third one, well, we discussed the sources above and there is no consensus they are sufficient. Also... where is the Wired coverage? The Atlantic? Links, please. The "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" is open to debate; most of those exhibitions are uncited, but can be AFGed. But were they really substantial, and were they significant? Personally I feel that for that we need to have a source other than artist CV or institution news. Show me a major publication like Wired/Atlantic, indeed, which devotes more than 1-2 sentences to her work, and then we will have something. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: I, too, would like to see the coverage in Wired or The Atlantic. That would definitely make this a keeper and I would change my !vote above.

However, I am also thinking that this may be passing criterion 4.b. of WP:NARTIST. Now that the article has been massively trimmed and cleaned up by an anonymous IP (great improvement), it's now easier to see what might be notable, or not. In particular, in the list of exhibitions, we have several redlinks or no-links, suggesting that these may not yet be notable. But we also have some notable museums/exhibitions. Of those, most don't have any citations. But I see that two of them do: Foundation for Art and Creative Technology and Electronic Language International Festival. This looks like it might meet the "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" criterion in WP:NARTIST 4.b. What do you think? ~Anachronist (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: The Electronic Language International Festival seem to have notability issue itself, but seems notable (coverage in Phil Jones; James Evans (1 February 2013). Urban Regeneration in the UK: Boom, Bust and Recovery. SAGE Publications. pp. 178–. ISBN 978-1-4462-9144-3. and few more sources). The question is, however - how are we to judge whether her work "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" held there? She did get two pages of coverage at the institution ([28], [29]), so the substantial part is ok, but what makes a "significant" exhibition? I tried looking for any news coverage of an exhibition, but failed to find it. problem we are facing is that in the modern world, almost any artist will get some exhibitions somewhere, and a mention on associated webpages. How to measure it, I am not sure. This is not an area I feel I am an expert. I have my own set of standards, which generally ask for at least a paragraph description of the artist - a short bio - published by an institution that is not associated with the artist. The problem with many low-key exhibitions are that they may be a for-profit venues, where the artist is trying to sell their works, splitting profits with the gallery/etc., and they are doing pure PR. Again, how to distinguish between an non-profit, real museum/public benefit exhiibition, and a shop masquarading as one, and even whether this is the best distinction, I am not prepared to say. But if the gallery doesn't apear to be major, even if it has a Wikipedia article, I don't consider it automatically meeting 4b. I hope the above clarifies why. Anyway, I feel that this articles is on the wrong side of borderline, with the sources we have found so far. If we could hear from an expert, a professor specializing in modern art in UK... ah, vane hope. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had a bot which would auto-strike such useless comments as WP:PERX. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reviewing admin will typically discount simple votes that fail to address any of the arguments. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I certainly do not agree with Piotrus that my comment is "useless". I had encouraged Netherzone and others to look into this more carefully. In the light of the comprehensive examination which has now resulted, I am entitled to agree to the conclusion of the analysis. It would be silly to repeat the entire section as a basis for my "keep".--Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ipigott: What do you mean? You have not participated in the discussion until your vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: "I see the discussion is veering towards delete which I find rather surprising given the extensive number of exhibitions, publications, interviews, etc., posted here. I think someone needs to go through these more carefully as quite a number appear to me to be valid secondary sources. It would also be useful to know whether any of the artworks are on permanent display. There must also be Polish news sources, etc." This was posted here on 9 February and obviously had the desired effect.--Ipigott (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: Ah, you commented somewhere else. Well, that's great, and yes, I am sure it helped, but you can't expect others to follow (stalk...) your comments to know that. From the perspective of those not following that other forum and not aware of that context, your vote here was pretty meaningless. I do appreciate your help, but next time, linking such a diff and saying "per my prior comments elsewhere" would make things more clear.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Links to The Atlantic & WIRED. Above is an appeal for an "expert, a professor specializing in modern art in the UK", while I am not in the UK, I am a professor of art and art history in the U.S. for 30 years, if that makes any difference. The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/video/archive/2011/08/analogue-is-the-new-digital-in-ada--and-interactive-installation/469725/ WIRED.CO.UK Via Wayback Machine – there are 16 archived captures: https://web.archive.org/web/20120119062626/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/27/ada-charcoal-sphere - Original link (down): http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-07/27/ada-charcoal-sphere ~~If I am permitted to vote in this discussion, based on my several comments above, Keep.~~ Moving my vote to keep up to my main argument. You're welcome.Netherzone (talk) 05:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination. Wired and Atlantic links that Netherzone found are sufficient to establish NARTIST. It is always a pleasure to see a real expert take part in those discussions (and yes, US will do :>). Thank you! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miloslav Švandrlík. Sandstein 12:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ještě máme co jsme chtěli[edit]

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

At first I thought it was borderline, but it almost looks like a hoax. The article discusses primarily not this book, but other works of the author. It does not cite any reviews, nor can I find any (through sources would be in Czech in which I am not fluent). Czech page about the author cs:Miloslav Švandrlík does not seem to mention this book. In the AGF spirit towards the creator, I am not calling it a hoax, but as written, it clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't hoax [30] but I don't think the book is equally "famous" or notable as Švandrlík's masterpiece, the novel Black Barons. I would say that there must be reviews of the book from the pre-Internet era (it was published in 1991), but I can't find any. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.Konieczny, let me assure you that the article discusses the book and the book only as the work is almost autobiography by author as clearly stated right at the end (The author writes about him self under pseudonym Roman Kefalin). Every single word stated in the article is in the book and is about Roman Kefalin the main protagonist. The article lists a number of works which are of similar character but not a single one is mentioned by a single word anywhere in the article! How would you judge to the extent of the book beyond Wikipedia:Notability (books) withouth any knowledge about the topic is mystery to me. Conclusions and points you've made about the content of the book are I am sorry to inform you, missinterpreted. As the points you've made above are invalid, I am sorry but I am unable to respond appropriately. But if you are not fluent in Czech language you will be happy to know that English page about author en:Miloslav Švandrlík does mention the book. And I will try and clarify any further details as soon as possible.

Mr. Vejvančický already provided the link to the book (Thank you), but to clarify sheer facts about the book:

Titul: Ještě máme co jsme chtěli Autor: Miloslav Švandrlík Vydano: Nakladatelstvi Alexandra Tomskeho Rozmluvy Praha 2, Vinohradska 28, v roce 1991 Ilustroval Jiri Winter 200 stran, 36 obrazku Sazba Typograficke pocitacove studio AMOS Praha 1, Krakovska 8 Publikace c.8 Vytisly Tiskarny Vimperk s.p. ISBN 80-85336-03-0

Title: Ještě máme co jsme chtěli Author: Miloslav Švandrlík Published: Nakladatelstvi Alexandra Tomskeho Rozmluvy Praha 2, Vinohradska 28, v roce 1991 Ilustrated Jiri Winter 200 pages, 36 pictures Sazba Typograficke pocitacove studio AMOS Praha 1, Krakovska 8 Publication no.8 Printed by Tiskarny Vimperk s.p. ISBN 80-85336-03-0

Thank you for your comments gentlements, I shall look into it as soon as possible. Meanwhile, any suggestions which can help the cause and wikipedia are more than welcomed. (Petr Talasek (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - this is certainly a real book. The plot explains that the book is about the writing of another book, Black Barons. This might be the root of the nom's confusion. I've just copy-edited the article and given it a general clean-up. It probably fails Wikipedia:Notability (books) unless the author is especially important in and of himself. Not sure he is, but that's the only criteria it might pass on — Iadmc ♫^talk 13:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author is undoubtedly notable but he was quite a prolific writer and not all of his works deserve stand alone articles, such as Black Barons. The question is whether we can find reviews and sources proving that Ještě máme co jsme chtěli is a notable novel. If not, I'd suggest to delete the article, as redirect to the list of works by Švandrlík without any further context would make little sense. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iadmc: Yes, that coupled with the unclear initial draft, would explain my confusion. If the book fails notability (and nothing so far hasbeen suggested it doesn't, i.e. no reviews, rewards, etc.) at least now we have a good target for merger, i.e. Black Barons (book). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: @Vejvančický: @Petr Talasek: Yes, merger into Black Barons (book) might make sense: Ještě máme co jsme chtěli is after all about the writing of Black Barons — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection, it looks like a sensible and constructive solution. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the author page -- seems an obvious solution to me. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Miloslav Švandrlík, the author. Considered Black Barons too, but the title isn't even mentioned at that page. C 679 15:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Windolf[edit]

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources provide substaintial coverage including a 4 minute news clip from what I think is a German news station (tough to tell exactly what it is because it is in German). We should note that because most of the sources are not in English, there is likely many sources that a google search would miss, and hence google searches are not a good source for this notability discussion. MATThematical (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which of the sources on this page do you think have substantial coverage? Certainly none of the ones on the article which are purely made up of result lists. I also don't see this news clip you mention, perhaps I am missing something. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is actually a 3 minute Televesion clip (not 4, sorry for the error) from the TV station RTL in norway. It takes a while to load, so it is easy to miss in the last reference, 14. I'm not so sure if it is enough on its own to gaurantee WP:GNG coverage, because I don't speak the language, but at least in the United States a 3 minute TV story is very substantial, most "local man does X" stories are very short, less than a minute, at every channel I have watched). I think its existence does suggest that other sources would be pretty easy to find by a native speaker located in Norway, caution must be taken in an AFD when we don't speak the language the sources are in. MATThematical (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to keep this article about this sports player viable.TH1980 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning World Masters Athletics Championships four times seems like a strong claim of notability to me. It's strange, though, that WP:NATHLETE doesn't really cover decathlons and other track and field events. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered in the WP:NTRACK section. That is actually why this article was created. The author was trying to prove he could find coverage for any medal winning masters athlete because addition of masters athletes to ntrack has been routinely rejected there because most of them they simply can't be sourced. This one is borderline as there appears to be possibly a video source, although nothing else has been turned up so it fails having multiple sources. -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A strong claim of notability backed up by the sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out there is only one possible source in the video. We do require multiple, all the other sources on the page are results lists. I have been unable to turn anything else up. I have no problem keeping if we can indeed find some more sources. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for "harburg-aktuell" not being considered as another source. Again it is in German, so tough to tell, but that article is very extensive. It talks about his family his training, his childhood as a gymnast, and his injuries. This certainly isn't a WP:ROUTINE sports listing of mere statistics, so I am assuming you are arguing that "harburg-aktuell" isn't a reliable source. Please explain why, as you have yet to explain why this source should not be counted towards his notability. --MATThematical (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jac16888 ^Talk 18:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jojo à Gogo[edit]

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

I don't believe the award claimed meets either criterion 8 or 9 in the list of criteria at WP:BAND. There is nothing else to suggest meeting WP:BAND either, and Google finds only 46 matches for "jojo a gogo", none of them in the form of substantial coverage in a reliable source, so WP:GNG isn't met. Not notable. Largoplazo (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update I just ran the search again and came up with either 164 hits or 193 hits, depending how many times I tried it. But most of the hits now are about a game called "Jojo's Bizarre Adventure", often with exclamation points embedded in the name, or about the PowerPuff Girls character Mojo Jojo. Many are in Chinese or Japanese and are also not about the musical group. Largoplazo (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are no plentiful, neutral sources about this band, this article might as well be removed.TH1980 (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability, award unclear, couldn't find anything remotely reliable, relevant, or meaningful. Dr Aaij (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't even figure out for certain if this was a band or one guy. No evidence of notability and very little info available period. Rockypedia (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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