Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 February 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 February	10 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 speedy delete, criterion G7. The nominator is the page's only editor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy bowien[edit]

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

page has typo in page title Bzirr (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Jimmy bowien[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Small country syndrome[edit]

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

One-sentence stub with a dicdef and a list of sources that allegedly make use of the term. May belong in Wiktionary instead.

Failed prod in Aug 2015, tagged for expansion since Mar 2016, hasn't attracted any.

Both contributors, Aelffin and Sofia Koutsouveli, had left the project. --81.96.84.137 (talk) 23:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I moved the above from the article's talkpage. No comment on the nomination. ansh 666 01:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several references using the words "small country syndrome" but each of them applies a different meaning. It's a catchy phrase that writers interpret to suit their story.There is no specific, definitive meaning to it.Glendoremus (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep potentially expandable stub; offline sources DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has four times as many hits for "small penis syndrome"; does this encourage you to create an article on small penis syndrome? (Please don't!) --131.111.5.45 (talk) 10:21, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to break it to you but we actually do have an article on Small Penis Syndrome. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Single-sentence article, with no historical context or verifiable examples. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maugenhard Dorm[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable dorm, as a search for coverage in reliable sources resulted in only finding brief mentions in unreliable sources. I had tagged an earlier version of this article (which was more about a band than a building) for speedy deletion, but this was declined by GB fan on the grounds that A7 doesn't apply to building. This could possibly be redirected to Black Forest Academy, but I'm not sure if this could be a plausible search term given the disambiguation. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single boarding house of a single school. Definitely not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is no notable dorm but it is one the dorms that contributes to Black Forest Academy in such a way that it is one of the pillars thats holds the school together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.214.83 (talk) 13:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most disliked YouTube videos[edit]

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

This is an arbitrary list of videos that offers nothing encyclopedic. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 21:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Keep Beautifully written and meticulously sourced, this article represents the pinnacle of Wikipedia content and is the culmination of centuries of human progress. Denarivs (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator is basically accusing the article of being an indiscriminate collection of information. However, I do not think that this is the case; the list is limited to precisely 40 entries that are determined by an objective standard (specifically the number of dislikes received). Now per the indiscriminate policy, any list of data “should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources”. This article does in fact cite a number of reliable sources independent of YouTube (including the BBC, Time Magazine and the Guinness Book of World Records) describing the progression of the most disliked YouTube videos. Furthermore, the article also includes a number of sources supporting the claim that the most disliked YouTube videos are of legitimate cultural and (to a lesser extent) political interest. While at first glance this article doesn’t exactly scream “encyclopedic”, I think it’s narrow enough and has gotten enough coverage by reliable sources to justify inclusion. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, not arbitrary. Also per what Spirit of Eagle has said. Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Anarchyte (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't disagree that there are a handful of secondary sources to support some of the videos are in fact notable for their amount of dislikes. What I do disagree with is significant coverage to support a list of these items. This content belongs in other places. If Rebecca Black's "Friday" was the most disliked YouTube video, it belongs on that song's article (which it currently does). I do agree with Spirit of Eagle that there is cultural significance for the amount of dislikes a video receives, I simply don't see any coverage of a "Top 40 most disliked videos on YouTube" to support this list. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 08:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Drewmutt: People have written articles about the most disliked YouTube videos. 1, 2, and a blacklisted link page, and that's from the first page of google. The reliability of these pages is debatable, though. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anarchyte: Although, as I mentioned, I agree there's decently sourced information regarding the cultural significance of heavily disliked YouTube videos, I still don't see, including your links, much support for an ongoing ranking. To use Rebecca Black's song again (my apologies), you certainly can find enough RS to say what the song is about, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it justifies a "List of songs referencing buses" along with "The wheels on the bus", because although there's significant coverage about them individually, there's not enough to support them as a group. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 10:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources linked to from this article discuss the “competition” for the most disliked video, and the ranking of some of the most disliked videos at a given time. Additionally, the BBC and Times article make specific reference to the top 10 and top 18 (respectively) most disliked videos. Now it’s true that specific attention has only been paid to the top videos on the list, and that the bottom of the list has been largely ignored. However, WP:LISTN states that all of a list’s entries do not need to be covered by the sources so long as the general grouping has gotten coverage. (Also, I found a book that included a chapter entitled “Listener-Senders, Musical Irony, and the Most “Disliked” YouTube Videos”. Most of the chapter is unfortunately cut off, but the title indicates that it does in fact discuss the most disliked YouTube videos). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit of Eagle: Honestly I was not expecting a push back... We cannot write random "lists of" article based on every statistical anomaly. The deviation itself needs to have credible reliable sources so the question in mind is "Why should we consider the most disliked aspect of these videos notable". The individual videos are notable, but not the fact that they are most disliked independently as the most disliked is an arbitrary feature. Otherwise we would have strange articles such as most disliked videos on YouTube by demographics, nationality and whatever other statistics available on YouTube for the very same videos. That is probably why List of most liked YouTube videos, List of most viewed YouTube videos and List of most disliked YouTube videos have so much overlap. It is pretty much the same list with different ranking. Just sort the videos by name to see what I mean. This should not be very surprising since all we are covering in these articles is the number of clicks on buttons (most liked/disliked) and number of views. So, what about it? The like button has been pressed 5.3 million times (rank 14) for "All About That Bass" and the dislike button was pressed 0.61 million times (rank 32) for that same video which was viewed a total of 1.735 billion times (rank 14). What does this statistical information offer us? What about "Gangnam Style" which was liked 11.91 million times (rank 2), disliked 1.694 million times (rank 6) and viewed 2.759 billion (rank 1)? I just pulled two random examples from these three lists. The more popular a video is the more like/dislike clicks it will receive. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 13:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we should only create statistical list articles when there are reliable sources independent of the subject talking about the list subject. However, my basic argument for keeping this specific statistical listing is that there are in fact reliable sources independent of YouTube that provide coverage to the article’s topic. If someone were to create a list such as “Most Liked YouTube Videos by Canadians”, then I would vote to delete it since there are no reliable sources discussing the list topic (nor does YouTube track most viewed videos by demographic group for that matter). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spirit of Eagle: Each video has such statistics for demographics. I remember them being publicly available but that seemingly has changed at some point. My point is number of likes/dislikes are just as arbitrary as any other information. On the other hand, a liked percentage column in the main List of most viewed YouTube videos would fulfill the role of the two lists (liked/disliked) in one go. Do you see what I mean with this? These pages have very little purpose aside from inadequately mirroring List of most viewed YouTube videos. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@とある白い猫:I went through and counted the appearances of the videos listed in this article in the List of most viewed YouTube videos. For the count, any video that appeared anywhere in any of the lists in the most viewed article was counted. In my overall count, 17 videos appeared in both articles, while 23 videos appeared solely in this article. In other words, an outright majority of videos in this article make no appearance in the most viewed article. Additionally, amongst the top 10 most disliked videos, only 3 (Baby, Gagnam Style and Wrecking Ball) appeared in the most viewed article. Of the top 20 most disliked articles, only 6 appeared in the most viewed article (Sorry, Wheels on the Bus, and Маша плюс каша in addition to the three listed previously). My point is that while there is some overlap, the majority of listings, particularly in the top half, do not appear in the most viewed article. Simply adding a "percent liked" column to the most viewed article would eliminate the majority of most disliked videos, including several that got media coverage for being the most disliked. I'm not necessarily opposed to merging some of these statistic articles, but any such merge needs to be orderly and not result in the deletion of content covered in reliable sources. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call 57.5% overwhelming. The only information to be merged would be the paragraphs (the more interesting part) and the tables (in the form of a column). This pretty much covers everything presented on the page. I imagine it would be more fruitful to discuss liked/disliked videos in the single list would make more sense. The non-overlapping videos could be merged into the most viewed IMHO. I just do not see "most liked/disliked" as a valid criteria as a standalone topic. It is an interesting feature, do not get me wrong, just not a standalone topic. It is like having a list of article on most liked Facebook posts... -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 00:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Also bear in mind that the like/dislike buttons are a more recent thing. In the past YouTube had a 5 star system to vote for videos. So this is not even a consistent metric. In the future, YouTube could change its algorithm to remove the 'dislike' button altogether for example. Or start ignoring some likes/dislikes to combat fake votes. How can we treat such an inconsistent standard a reliable source? -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 09:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 18:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well written, well sourced, not arbitrary. Lepricavark (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep referenced finite list. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced and notable topic. Not arbitrary at all. I know this is irrelevant to AFDs but the page currently receives nearly 5000 views a day. AusLondonder (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a long list of secondary and reliable sources to support the page, and I concur it is not arbitrary. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans[edit]

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

Considerations:

It is a list that will eventually have no members. In spite of its title, it Is a list of Easy Company survivors and gets shorter every year. The list apparently started as an effort to include everyone but its focus shifted after its creation; many member of the unit had no notoriety.
None of the soldiers who appear now or have ever appeared on the list meet the standards in WP:SOLDIER.
The existence of the list is primarily based on the airing of the cable series Band of Brothers (miniseries).

--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This deletion appears to have not been processed correctly and is unlikely to attract sufficient notice until fixed (which I haven't worked out how to do). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 09:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, I followed the instgructions and the nomination appears incorrectly in the log, although it appears correctly in the edit window. I'm hoping someone will come along who knows how to fix it.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note You were missing the template from step 2 {{subst:afd2 | pg=PageName | cat=Category | text=Why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ I have added for you, and it appears that is the only problem with this listing. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete no reason why this unit should be singled out to list survivors none of which appear to be particularly notable in wikipedia terms. MilborneOne (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list includes non-notable veterans about whom there are sources verifying they had served in this company. They would not be included in the list at 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) which are the notable Soldiers, only. I'm ok with that. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too specific to be encyclopedic. However it is perhaps surprising that 5 people from one company should be WP-notable. The objection about living veterans is invalid: people do not cease to be veterans by ceasing to be living veterans. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why does this list only contain living veterans, anyway? I like the format of the list, and given the large number of individuals at E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Personnel with pages: why not spin off that list to its own article; why not let the list have be in the format of a sortable table; and if the list has its own article, would List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans be the appropriate name for the article? My !vote would be that there probably doesn't need to be a list of notable and non-notable veterans of a famous group of this size (living only or living and non-living). On the other hand, the encyclopedia probably would be improved by an article listing notable members of the company in the format of a sortable table with the sort of information in this list, and I am in favor of that (and would support merging/renaming this list to that). Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is was discussed at Talk:E_Company,_506th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)#Names_of_all_soldiers--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't think I said anything about listing non-notable individuals. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Point well taken. The problem is that none of the members of Easy are/were notable. The closest is Colonel Robert Sink because he later became a general officer.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misunderstood, is this a discussion of all the individuals at E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)#Personnel, then? Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this RfD is for the list. I have nominated an individual's page for deletion separately, however.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your nomination of Albert Mampre, I have !voted there. Here, I still don't quite understand this list and agree with you that a list of living vets doesn't really make sense, although I still think that a list of all notable vets might. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:27, 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) 03:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cry Macho[edit]

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

The film never went into production. Fails WP:NFF. Koala15 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps a brief mention as an "unrealized project" might be included in Brad Furman's article but this article fails WP:NFILM. MarnetteD|Talk 20:56, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reg Wyatt[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based on just two pieces of local media sourcing, neither of which is even about his political career: one just quotes his opinions on the economic situation seven years after he left office, and the second is about his son's new election to city council sixteen years later. This is not enough to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack or sources and material. How lowly is a councillor not? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There just isn't enough about him for an entry. He seems to be notable in part because he is the father of a sitting representative and this information could be included on that page. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so being the father of another person isn't a notability claim in and of itself — if he isn't notable enough for an article by himself, then having a possibly more notable son doesn't make him any more notable than he was before. Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying he was notable because of his son. I was saying that it seems like any claim of notability would probably involve his family relations. Of course, that alone isn't enough to satisfy GNG, but it does suggest that he could be mentioned on his son's page.

On a related point, it seems like you're judging notability too unidimensionally. Is subject a politician of a city with X population? Where X is less than Y, then delete. I think its much more complex than that. A local politician of any area who does important things and has the supporting refs deserves inclusion. You might look at it more as a scorecard, where status as a local politician alone is not enough to satisfy the threshold. But a local pol who has done lots of stuff, got lots of attention (good or bad) - this should get additional points and satisfy the threshold for inclusion. Of course, that's not the case here. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Of course it's true that a local politician who has done lots of stuff, and got lots of media attention for it, clears the WP:GNG bar — the "population of the city" test comes into play only in the sense of determining whether or not the person gets a presumption of notability for an article that isn't substantive or properly sourced yet. In the global cities (e.g. Toronto, New York City, London), we know that the necessary depth and volume of sourcing is virtually guaranteed to be available in nearly all cases — so we allow the article to be kept even if it's in an inadequate state of sourcing right now, because the articles are virtually guaranteed to be improvable. (It may still become deletable in the future if the sourcing fails to materialize — e.g. a person could theoretically win election as a city councillor, but then resign or die so soon afterward that we can never actually source anything else about them besides the fact of winning the election itself — but in that rarefied class of cities, we allow the article to exist up front and the GNG to build up as the article gets worked on.)

Outside of that range of cities, however, it's much more of a toss-up as to whether the necessary depth and volume of sourcing will exist or not — so those councillors can still get Wikipedia articles if the necessary depth and volume of sourcing can be shown, but are not guaranteed inclusion on the basis of just one or two sources. Note, for example, that I have not nominated several other people who also have not held any office higher than Winnipeg's city council, but whose articles are citing a lot more sources than the ones I have listed. That is, for example, why I haven't nominated Russ Wyatt's article alongside his dad's: Reg's article cites just two sources while Russ's cites 63 — which means Russ has been shown to clear GNG in a way that Reg hasn't.

In a nutshell, the size of the city doesn't matter if a city councillor passes GNG on the basis of solid and substantive sourcing — where it comes into play is the question of whether or not we give the benefit of the doubt to an article that isn't substantive or solidly sourced yet. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. From what I'd seen on other pages of legislators proposed for deletion, it seemed like the process was different. I wouldn't expect that winning office alone would be enough for notability and I support that criteria. But it seems that there is added scrutiny to many of the pages of these people. There shouldn't be a presumption of notability, but there also shouldn't be a presumption of non-notability, even if all the coverage is local. As many editors don't take the time to review sources before they reach a decision in the AFD discussion, there is a real bias towards deleting and an assumption of non-notability. Its easier to apply the "oh, its a small town politician - delete" rather than taking the time to look for sources. Again, its much better to err on the side of keeping something up so that additional sources can be found rather than deleting. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:55, 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) 03:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Chipkar (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

WP:SPIP JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC) This looks to be a self-promotional article that tried to sneak past the radar by overwriting an existing page (Viña del Mar Open) instead of creating a new one. Except for some minor recent copy-editing, the text that took it over has only one editor (User:Wimhyn), whose only contribution in main-space appears to be this article, on the day it took over the old article. The references all appear to be to promotional sites-- either PR news release sites that anyone can post to, or company sites controlled by the subject of the article-- and the facts (like the author's supposed $1.25 billion net worth) not verifiable. The book prominently mentioned in the article ("Conquering thy death") cannot be found in WorldCat or the Library of Congress. (This is my first AfD request; please excuse any formatting irregularities.) JohnMarkOckerbloom (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, PROMO. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:49, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Wolfe (politician)[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based on just two pieces of local coverage about his death, which would be expected in the local media, and a couple of glancing namechecks of his existence in books about other people. This is not enough to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. I concur that this article probably doesn't meet current requirements. The problem, of course, is not that Mr. Wolfe has become less notable, but that our notability standards are a moving target. Not that that's an argument to keep this article - we do need more sourcing - but just something that grinds my gears. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city councilors at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a stellar example of "consensus" being hastily applied. I am dubious of all the unsourced awards and would like to see them removed, or at a minimum given references, but I can't fathom how this subject could ever be considered not notable. As UltraExactZZ suggests, this idea of notability is a moving target and editors who insist on deletion ought to realize how the pendulum could (and should) swing to a wider interpretation. Sadly, at that point, many of these entries will be gone. Bangabandhu (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. It is not that city councilmembers are not notable, but that there is not a presumption of notability for city councilmembers. As Bearcat recently wrote, WP:NPOL notability "is achieved in one of two ways: either the coverage nationalizes into sources far beyond the geographic range in which such coverage is merely expected, and/or the local coverage volumizes to the point where a much more substantial article can be written." In this case, it does not appear there is either the volume of substantive coverage, nor does there appear an expansion of geographic scope of coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Swandel[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based on a small smattering of purely routine local coverage of the type that would be expected to exist for all city councillors in all cities. This is not enough to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:NPOL, is only known locally and does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, he does meet NPOL. What makes you think that he doesn't? Point 2 of NPOL - Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. He's got many cites from a quick google search, including national coverage. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not substantive national coverage of Swandel; it's a blurb published by the CBC's local news bureau in Winnipeg as routine local coverage of local politics, and doesn't even contain a mention of Swandel's name at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I got this confused with another entry nominated. I'll leave it in here so the thread makes sense and copy the reference to that page. But to your point, I think in this instance he's surely more notable than the average Winnipeg legislator as he was not only a councilor but also a Deputy Mayor. If he were only a councilor, with no references, I'd agree with the deletion. But here he's a deputy mayor and councilor with abundant references. And we still think he's not notable because Winnipeg is not global enough? Bangabandhu (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the coverage rises above what would be routine for a local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How did you arrive at that conclusion? Are you basing your assessment of "coverage" on the cites that appear in the article, or have you done an exhaustive search? Bangabandhu (talk) 15:31, 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lim Yee Xien[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORT. National youth team. Fail WP:BIO scope_creep (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable sports person. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Delete Fails WP:GNG. Stub. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither failing WP:GNG nor being a stub is reason for "speedy delete". Being a stub is not even reason for deletion, cf. WP:IMPATIENT. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Sailor I must be misunderstanding the whole thing, because isn't A7 applicable here? L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CA7M. — Sam Sailor 02:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Sailor Thanks so much for showing that to me. I now see where I erred, WP:A7M#CI, and even if only on minor or amateur level. I need to read the rest of that series, it appears to do a great job of filling in the confusing parts of CSD. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I could find about her was that she placed 24th in Women's 10 metre air rifle at the 2016 ISSF Junior World Cup. Currently fails NSPORT, as well as GNG/BASIC; delete per policy. — Sam Sailor 23:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one interview with her but I think it's some kind of school paper and thus isn't enough to establish notability. Has not placed high enough in any sporting event to satisfy WP:NSPORT. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NSPORT.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Steek[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass, and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based on just two pieces of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election campaigns, with no evidence of sources that are substantively about him. This is not enough to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete city council members at this level are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As a local city councilor, fails to meet WP:NPOL. Article makes no claim to notability and subject has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to establish WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- What leads editors to conclude that "subject has not received significant coverage"? Based on the most cursory of searches, I came across this recent article suggesting that the subject remains active and relevant. I think that an exhaustive search would yield a lot more results. If you delete all this work will need to be recreated if that search is conducted.

I would add that classifying tiers of cities seems imprecise at best and more likely unfair and predjudicial. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A city councillor has to receive more than purely local coverage to qualify for a Wikipedia article, so that article doesn't assist anything. The reason we make exceptions for the top tier of international global cities is that they do routinely receive much broader national and/or international coverage than city councillors in small cities do — I'm Canadian, and I can personally name more municipal councillors in New York City than I can in even the suburbs of my own city, because city councillors in NYC get nationalized coverage where city councillors in Pickering ON or Vaughan ON generally don't. And local coverage of local politics always exists, so we would always have to permit articles about every municipal councillor in every village of 50 people if local coverage alone were enough. So to make a city councillor in Winnipeg notable enough for a Wikipedia article, you would need to show coverage in the Vancouver Sun or the Toronto Star or The New York Times, not just in the Winnipeg Free Press or the local Metro. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point that you're making, though I think "every village of 50 people" is a bit of an exaggeration. My concern with these relatively indiscriminate nominations for deletion is that few editors are taking the time to really see if that broader coverage exists. Because its been nominated for deletion, the assumption is that additional coverage doesn't exist if it's not cited in the article, which leads to the conclusion that deletion is appropriate. In this instance, and I suspect many others, the subject has received national coverage and it is important that the entry remain. Why delete knowledge in this page and the work that went into it? Much better to err on the side of caution. Bangabandhu (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't represent substantive national coverage that strengthens his WP:GNG claim at all. It's not a substantive article about him published by the CBC's national news division — it's a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb whose primary subject is Glen Murray, and which was published by the CBC's local news bureau in Winnipeg. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this shows adequate sourcing beyond the basic citations of an officeholder in Winnipeg. At the risk of violating protocol by mixing threads, you commented elsewhere that "so those councillors can still get Wikipedia articles if the necessary depth and volume of sourcing can be shown, but are not guaranteed inclusion on the basis of just one or two sources." We're well beyond one or two sources for this entry. If he were in a different, larger city - say, Calgary? - then he wouldn't need any of these sources - but because he's in Winnipeg and has a bunch of other sources, many of which are quite interesting, he's a target for deletion. That seems mistaken. Bangabandhu (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're still misinterpreting what I'm saying. In a global city (and only in a global city), you can start the article on the basis of one or two sources which confirm that he exists, but the article does still have to get improved from there before it's actually on safe ground as a thing we're going to keep forever. Even in Toronto, there have been municipal councillors who got deleted because better sourcing never actually materialized. What it gets is "the benefit of the doubt", because in a global city it's perfectly reasonable to expect that the depth and volume of reliable sourcing needed to pass GNG does exist even if it hasn't been properly shown yet, but it does not get a permanent exemption from ever having to be sourced better than just one or two sources — it just gets a "grace period" during which it does still need to be improved, and can still be deleted if it doesn't. But in a non-global city, the necessary depth and volume of sourcing might still exist but is far less guaranteed to exist — so in that class of cities, the existence of the needed quality of sourcing has to be shown up front by the article as written.

But neither type of city councillor gets a permanent keep on the basis of one or two sources, with no improvement ever required — a global city councillor gets a temporary benefit of the doubt if the article isn't well-sourced yet, but does not get a permanent exemption from ever having to be sourced as well as a non-global city councillor does. Both types of city councillors do have to clear GNG for an article to be kept permanently — the only difference is that a non-global city councillor has to be shown to clear GNG right up front, while a global city councillor gets a temporary grace period of "okay, you have X number of days or weeks to get this article over GNG", but even the global city councillor's article can still be deleted if that improvement doesn't happen. If the necessary depth and volume of sourcing fails to materialize for some reason, then the global city councillor does still fail NPOL #3 and does still get deleted.

And no, a 100-word blurb about Glen Murray reshuffling his executive committee positions is not "adequate sourcing beyond the basic citations of an officeholder in Winnipeg" — it's WP:ROUTINE local coverage of a routine local political announcement, which in no way demonstrates that Steek is somehow more notable than the norm for a city councillor. It is a basic citation for the fact that he exists, not a "beyond the basic" citation for his existence warranting Wikipedia's attention. Bearcat (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's helpful. It might make sense to make it explicit by exactly when those sources need to materialize to avoid deletion. I think the model used by the Deaths in 2017 could be something to go from as they have a standard 30 day requirement for entries. I think you (or editors with consensus) should state this grace period. Its troubling looking back and seeing that these are second nominations. There was not much reason to delete them when they were AFD'd before or support for deletion. I wonder if this is more of a herd mentality at play (and an quick interpretation of NPOL) rather than actually looking at the articles on their merits. As far as I can tell, the guidelines haven't changed, but editor's interpretation has.

Also I think more benefit of the doubt is warranted. You're saying that you've given them X days, but maybe at that point you should tag it for discussion. Have all of these pages have the "needs additional citations" tag applied before they were nominated for deletion? That seems fair if the initial goal is to help them achieve adquate references before they're nominated for deletion.Bangabandhu (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. 1) Consensus can and does change. In the case of "global cities," there was a presumption that the city councilmembers could be presumed notable (and the presumption of notability is that mere confirmation that the subject serves in a particular office is sufficient sourcing for an article is sufficient). That consensus is under going change. 2) WP:BLP states that "editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." Thus, for the creation of biographies, there is a presumption of privacy. Additionally, for information on people "who are not well known," editors should "include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." --Enos733 (talk) 21:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that consensus can and does change, but I wonder how many editors outside of those who frequent AFD discussions are familiar with the shift. I certainly wasn't. I bet there are many others like me who have edited pages about local politicians and would be surprised. So I wonder how broad any emerging consensus really is. The other thing is that it seems like editors are interpreting consensus "under going change" as new, widely held consensus. There ought to be a lively, detailed discussion for each one of these entries. Instead, it seems like editors are citing "new consensus" and basing their decisions to delete based on that, without, at times, even reading the article. This is especially troubling for living subjects who are still active in government and likely to have more notability over time. If they're on the cusp of notability we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt because more coverage will come - as suggested in another thread, there should be a grace period that is consistently followed. Pages improve incrementally, so if you pull the plug on something while its still improving, you're losing all that work which, if recreated based on new articles, is likely going to take a while to reach is pre-deletion state.

As to your point about standards for bios, I agree with you about the importance of high quality sourcing. I only use reputable secondary sources and expect the same from other editors. But that's a dimension for these discussions that hasn't come into play, perhaps because many editors aren't even reading the sources and only looking at whether the subject and their title fits with consensus. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "emerging" new consensus that the standards for determining the notability or non-notability of local politicians is changing at all — the consensus that most local politicians don't qualify for an automatic presumption of notability has existed for about a decade, and really hasn't moved all that much beyond a bit of debate about whether a few particular cities happen to fall on the "presumed notable" or the "not presumed notable until shown to pass GNG" side of the line. The only thing that's changed recently is our depth of commitment to actually getting stuff cleaned up or deleted that isn't complying with the longstanding consensus, not the consensus itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, I was using another editors words when I wrote emerging consensus. I think this is an important discussion and support the aim of cleaning up wikipedia, but I think the AFD debate is often counterproductive. It ought to focus more on how articles can be improved to meet standards (is that included in what you mean by "cleaned up"?) and only deleted if there is certainty that can't be achieved.

Also just to highlight an earlier point because I think my comments about consensus overshadowed something more important. It seems like the decision tree should be "Is there a presumption of notability? > Is there enough other content on page for notability? > Is there enough content elsewhere that is not on the page that can be added? > Is there other content that is likely to be added or become available very soon?" If the answer to all those questions is no, then deletion makes sense. Instead, the decision tree for many editors is more like "Is there a presumption of notability?" if the answer is no, it's my impression is that the other questions that should follow are biased towards no, if they're even asked at all. The upshot is that there's a jump towards deletion instead of the more tedious, but important task of searching for cites and improving content. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was tagged for G8 speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Film Critics Society (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Denver Film Critics Society Awards[edit]

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

Per the deletion of parent article, Denver Film Critics Society. FrB.TG (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Liam McM 20:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as the main awards themselves are not notable. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:29, 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) 15:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Savoie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person notable only as a city councillor, in a city not internationally prominent enough to hand its city councillors an WP:NPOL pass, and as a non-winning candidate for higher office. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a city that got its councillors into Wikipedia on the grounds that it was listed in the article on global city, that's more recently been deprecated because it was listed only in the "sufficiency" class of quasi-global cities and not as a true alpha, beta or gamma class world city. But what we have for sourcing here is not enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu -- this is based on just two pieces of media coverage which both just namecheck his existence in the process of being about something or somebody else, with no sources that are substantively about him. That's not the kind of sourcing it takes to demonstrate a city councillor as more notable than the norm, which is the standard that Winnipeg's city councillors now have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of city councils at this level are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the text in the article is not supported by the citations and there are no references easily available. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Atto[edit]

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

Possible fail of WP:BIO. References don't add up to the required standard. The article seems to say he is under contract to FC Hoffenheim, but ref says he is under contract to a youth Turkish side. Says he was playing FC Hoffenheim in Infobox, 3 years go, which means he would be 16. A youth. So fails notability guidelines. WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable WP:NFOOTBALL.No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hitch (wrestler)[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSBIO. Non-noteable wrestler. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - total fail of WP:GNG. MPJ-DK 01:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - slightly promotional in tone and poor references add to the fact it fails WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 12:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:SPORTSBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. E. Arulraj[edit]

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

Could find no significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources to show subject meets WP:BIO NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verify again. You can verify again the full article. It is not copied from any source. All these information are gathered through an opportunity i have received for meeting him. Although i have included many possible references. Kindly ensure that you are finding some more faults with my article so that you can propose more strongly for speedy deletion. Continue your fault finding job. Edson Frainlar (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I have moved the above comment here from the talkpage, where it was mistakenly placed; it's obviously intended as a "Keep" argument. Bishonen | talk 22:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC).)[reply]

Delete per nom and apparent promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. Another article by promotional author. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources provide only passing ention of the subject; no WP:DEPTH of coverage, as per nom. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maronda Homes[edit]

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

Clearly a business listing in which it violates our policies alone because we're not a business webhost, next is the fact these sources are only mere announcements, mentions and all similar, none of it substantiates the genuine notability we need; as always, our policies state themselves articles must be judged by as independently notable, and not bestowed from others. Mere announcements, regardless of publication, isn't what convinces our main policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. WP:NOT applies. Created by SPA account who continues to recreate article after it has been deleted.

03:57, 8 February 2017 Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda Homes(Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)
13:59, 8 February 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda homes (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G12, A7, G11)
16:35, 8 February 2017 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs) deleted page Maronda homes (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11)
18:59, 8 February 2017‎ Article is recreated again.

Sources in article do nothing to establish notability only that the business exists. CBS527^Talk 01:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - purely advertising. Flat Out (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete -I understand your concern with it being too PR focused however I have to say I really tried to keep it as unbiased and neutral as possible which i am being. I created the page because during our home buying process in the pittsburgh area we researched many builders and couldn't seem to find to much info on maronda homes, that is not the reason we didn't use them. But the other builder we went with has a wikipedia page so i figured why should maronda and s&a homes.

Creating the page was one of my ways to expose more info to potential people looking for more info on the company. I also plan to create a page for S&A homes but before i do that i would like to make sure i have a full understanding of what Wikipedia is looking for. Should i locate more creditable sources? The local papers are pretty big publications and i would with out a doubt consider them creditable. Their no NYtimes but they are legit brick & mortar establishments in pittsburgh for 100+ years. I don't think i am going to find too much in terms of bignames like NYtimes because their not in NY. Let me know what more you need and i will try my best.

here is something ^[1] but will this be considered to PR related, I guess it's just hard when your talking about a business to stray away from that.

Could this fit the non-PR related ^[2]^[3]

Just trying to understand because I think i could take a look at any page and say "Too PR focus" or "Purely Advertising"

From Coca-Cola "Coca-Cola (often referred to simply as Coke) is an American carbonated soft drink[1] produced by The Coca-Cola Company in Atlanta, Georgia, United States." Purely advertising, no?

From Dell "Dell sold personal computers (PCs), servers, data storage devices, network switches, software, computer peripherals, HDTVs, cameras, printers, MP3 players, and electronics built by other manufacturers. The company was well known for its innovations in supply chain management and electronic commerce, particularly its direct-sales model and its "build-to-order" or "configure to order" approach to manufacturing—delivering individual PCs configured to customer specifications.[6][7] Dell was a pure hardware vendor for much of its existence, but with the acquisition in 2009 of Perot Systems, Dell entered the market for IT services. The company has since made additional acquisitions in storage and networking systems, with the aim of expanding their portfolio from offering computers only to delivering complete solutions for enterprise customers."

Purely advertising, no?

Other comparable companies to Maronda Homes in which i don't see any different than Maronda Homes or S&A homes. Help me understand. Heartland Homes M/I Homes, NVR,_Inc., PulteGroup

References

^ http://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/05/03/new-single-family-homes-underway-college-hill/83872710/
^ http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/12/28/biggest-pittsburgh-area-bankruptcy.html
^ http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/12/28/biggest-pittsburgh-area-bankruptcy.html

Otelcon (talk) 11:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note for all recreations, content was drastically altered to accommodate infringements on deletion. It's not like I just spammed to create them

I see many sections that this page fits the criteria for. The controversial thing about it is everyone has their own opinion i think from an Admin perspective you need to put yourself in a neutral role, i feel that your looking at my page as I am trying to just get a wiki page for promotion. I am trying to get this page up for information on the company for other people if information gets up that is bad good, if good information gets up, its just information. I feel like i am being singled out especially when there are many other companies with the same parameters clearly listed on wikipedia. Thoughts? WP:IS Otelcon (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a notable article? Just really trying to dig in to find some stuff? If not why? ^[1]Otelcon (talk) 11:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More articles, Creditable?

Maronda files Chapter 11? ^[2]

References

^ https://www.probuilder.com/stealth-giant
^ http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212

Creditable enough to have a wikipedia page Pittsburgh_Post-Gazette writen by Tim Grant: [email protected] or 412-263-1591.

Again not trying to be confrontational, just trying to understand what peoples personal opinions are of creditable vs not creditable. You talk to anyone around Pittsburgh and a 80 mi radius and they would say the Post Gazette is a highly creditable source.Otelcon (talk) 13:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added above to Article page with 3 sourcesOtelcon (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otelcon, Please don't feel this is personal, because it is not. 100's of articles are deleted every week for similar problems. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines and that is what is being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a directory for business listings. An article on a business that doesn't establish notability may appear that the only purpose of the article is to promote the business. The subjects audience is considered. Maronda Homes is a small, local builder. Per policy, sources based solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It seems that the only sources available for this builder fall in this category. The differences between this business and Coca-Cola, Dell, NVR and Pulte is that they are large, national, publicly traded corporations with plenty of national/international coverage. As far Heartland Homes and M/I Homes, these articles are marginal and more than likely will have their own discussion soon. In searching for sources to add to improve the article I could only find PR listings, individual property transfers, local newspaper articles or trivial mentions. If someone can find some significant coverage in independent, reliable sources outside of this business' market area or product area it may help but as it stands this article doesn't seem to meet the requirements for inclusion. CBS527^Talk 17:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cbs527, I def am not taking it personal I understand the position, I am just defending my position on that I believe this is creditable article and no-bais information, I got nothing but love for all you admins / mods who have to pick through all this incoming junk. However might I add that they are a national home builder and not a small local builder. They are creditable articles in the venue of their business which depending on your perspective, keyword perspective you could deem those as significant or not significant. I respect that this is not the vehicle for business listings, which this is not my goal. The company is well beyond a mom and pop company. How could you leave M/I Homes and Heartland Homes up for so long which uses all the same references i have and their NYtimes article doesn't even mention heartland homes. M/I Homes article is a complete joke I suggest you check it out and you will see where i am coming from. I can find more examples outside of home builders. Just let me know i will supply it.

All sources do fit into the definition outline here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#News_organizations

It is your opinion on if you want to classify them as not reliable but they do meet the criteria in the policies outlined above. Would you agree or disagree? Again I just want to stress this is completely friendly conversation so please don't take it like I am getting defensive. In fact its friday and if you all lived by me i would say lets go have a beer Oyster_bar and bitch about creditable sources lol :)Otelcon (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem doesn't have to do with the reliability of the sources, it has to do with all of the references are from local sources and in some instances, such as the cincinnati.com article above, the depth of coverage. For instance, the bizjournals.com is a good reference as it has some in depth coverage about Maronda Homes. On the other hand the cincinnati.com article has a simply mention of Maronda Homes as one of six builders in a new 36 home subdivision. Please read WP:ORG for more information. I tried to find some sources outside of their market area to add to the article but I haven't been able to find any. And, I'll take you up on that beer! CBS527^Talk 23:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Otelcon re:How could you leave M/I Homes and Heartland Homes up for so long which uses all the same references i have and their NYtimes article doesn't even mention heartland homes. M/I Homes article is a complete joke I suggest you check it out and you will see where i am coming from. I can find more examples outside of home builders. Just let me know i will supply it. please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Otelcon, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be an accurate summary of what reliable sources have to say about a subject. That means, other people need to have written about the subject before you. Please read the golden rule.Flat Out (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was your reasoning again for ^[1] not being a valid source? Also how do i suggest other articles for deletion I see a lot out there no where near this golden rule. So just so i am on the same page. I need better sources and i can propose for resubmission? can't be a local established news paper and has to be written by an author? Did I get that correct. The creditable source can not be industry related and of a neutral party? Could you also point me to why exactly you declined all my post gazette articles ^[2]. It establishes the origin of the company, it's not by any means good press for a company. BEER?71.112.152.10 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212
^ http://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212

Otelcon you are not understanding the difference between sources that are allowed, and sources that establish notability. The sources you provide are allowed, but as announcements only, they dont establish notability of the company. Flat Out (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Iyer[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the guidelines in WP:NAUTHOR. The author's three books are self-published through BookSurge and don't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many National Geographic Bee competitors have used these publications to advance to the top levels of the competition LuckyWiki26 17:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the very positive reviews from top National Geographic Bee contestants in the back of Mr. Iyer's books. Tathagat Bhatia (Captain of the Third-place-winning team at the National Geographic World Championship 2013), Sanjeev (Ricky) Uppaluri (2013 3rd-place Winner), Vansh Jain (2011 2nd-place Winner), Arjun Kandaswamy (2009 2nd-place Winner), National-level Top-ten finalists including Anthony Cheng, Zaroug Jaleel, Milan Sandhu, and Nikhil Desai have all praised Mr. Iyer's books, crediting these publications with their Geo Bee success. LuckyWiki26 18:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm just not finding anything that would support WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. The article is sourced only to the author's website and an article about his son, and in a search I don't see any significant coverage of the subject. I found only one full-length review of any of the books, and that was on a blog. Worldcat shows several editions of his books, none held in more than a small handful of libraries. User reviews don't help with a subject's notability. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG and AUTHOR fail. Confidence on the part of the article author is a nice feature, but so would the author getting to know the Notability policies of Wikipedia.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In the article, I have added some sources and additional information that is relevant to this discussion. CaspianX (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews on Amazon and Goodreads are user-generated content, and don't help to confer notability. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I agree with nom and EricEnfermero that this specific "Ram Iyer" does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR (a Google search shows at least one other Ram Iyer, a professor at TTU, whose claim to notability would be much stronger than the subject of this Article). @L3X1: there is probably no need to Userfy, as a duplicate exists at User:LuckyWiki26/sandbox/Ram Iyer.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk2chun Ok. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence that such a position exists has been presented (according to my knowledge this role is actually taken care of by the Director for Cybersecurity Policy on the National Security Council, and a thorough online search returned nothing to the contrary), therefore this article is deemed unfit for inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

White House Cyber Security Adviser[edit]

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

Not a cabinet position, WP:RS indicate that it is an *informal* advisory role (see [1]). Notability of position is dubious. Article in current form is highly non-encyclopedic and unsourced. (Previous PROD template removed by creator.) General Ization ^Talk 17:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, since I was the original PROD'er and that was my rationale. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 18:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's questionable whether such a position exists, the article is barely comprehensible, and it contradicts its sole source. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:Info, and WP:V. Such a position does not seem to be a Presidential Cabinet appointment. This article is almost WP:OR, except for the Washington Post story. And even as an informal cyber security advisory position there really is no other coverage in independent secondary sources. This Washington Post story could have it wrong since no other sources verify or confirm this actually happened between Giuliani and Trump. No other sources deny it either. It just doesn't exist except for this one Washington Post article. Steve Quinn (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page should be keeper because although it's vague, when we learn more about the White House Cyber Security Adviser spot we can make this page better.--Reddan33 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Reddan33 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Wait - we should keep an article even though we admit it's "vague" as to whether the subject even exists? AusLondonder (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There as uncertainty as to whether this position actually exists. Even if it does it clearly fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is not even in English. Are we going to have an article on "President's Son-In-Law" now that Trump has one as an advisor? W Nowicki (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagaru[edit]

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

Does not pass film notability guidelines. Google search shows (after work in parsing the search) that the film will be released on 3 April 2017. Unreleased films are seldom notable. (Exception is if there is something notable about production, and no news to that effect was found.) Author blocked as promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MOVIE. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar De Pue Neville Osgood[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a person who has a potentially valid claim of notability, but hasn't even started to reliably source it -- of the four "references" here, three of them are YouTube or Dailymotion videos, and the fourth is a WP:CIRCULAR citation to another Wikipedia article. And on a Google News search, I'm finding exactly zero evidence of actual reliable source coverage. I will grant that despite the lack of recent coverage on open web, his potentially notable activities were far enough in the past that he might be sourceable over WP:GNG in deep databases that I don't have access to, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody can show evidence that higher-quality sources actually do exist somewhere -- but an improperly sourced article does not get the "keep and flag for refimprove" treatment just because it's theoretically possible that better sources might exist; it gets that treatment only if and when it can be demonstrated that the necessary volume and quality of reliable sourcing does exist. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something smells wrong with this article. Beyond the fact that it's 99% puffery and name-dropping, extraordinary claims require extraordinary references. I don't know how easy it is to get a Legion of Honor from France, but watching the video made me cringe. Rather than hurt my AfD percentage further, I'll just say that this biography gives me real doubts as to veracity. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced that the claims of the article could make him notable. I do know that the claim that his brother was in the rat pack is false, it does not work with the listed members of the rat pack we have. Beyond this, the link to a Wikipedia article for his brother is to someone born in 1876 who was not his brother. This article cries out for actual sources, and they are no where present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I find very few references to him and none of them indicate notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are many mentions of him in articles on newspapers.com[2] (also mentions of his parents and other peripheral individuals, note he frequently is found under "edgar d osgood"), none that I can find about him are in depth. genealogybank (a site similar to newspapers.com) doesn't give anything better, but gives more references. Thus, my feeling is that many of the individual statements in the article are verifiable and together they give the subject enough depth that he may be suitable for an article. If forced to !vote, I would say weak keep as a regional social and regional back-room political figure who has experienced minor coverage over a long period, especially if @Vivzs:, the article's creator, were interested in cleaning the page up and using reliable sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:13, 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) 15:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Schreyer[edit]

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

Local politician who only has received coverage regarding local issues to Winnipeg. Fails to meet WP:NPOL and I don't think the overwhelmingly local focus of the coverage passes WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While consensus formerly accepted Winnipeg as a large enough city to give its city councillors a presumption of notability per WP:GNG, that has more recently been deprecated. The process of getting the ones who already had articles before the consensus changed, but don't qualify for them anymore, is time-consuming, so at the moment we still have more of them than we should, but that is not justification in and of itself for starting new ones now. A Winnipeg city councillor can still occasionally get over WP:GNG on the basis of sourcing which demonstrates him as more than just locally notable, but two pieces of WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the election result itself is not what it takes to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a local city councillor, fails to meet WP:NPOL. Article makes no claim to notability and subject has not received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a member of the Winnipeg City Council is not enough to make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a member of the Winnipeg City Council is not the basis for an article's deletion. It just means that additional notability is required. In this instance, it exists and I will add one of the many cites that could be used for the article. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Spoke against the closing of public pools" is not, in and of itself, enough to make a city councillor more notable than the norm — every city council in existence is dealing with issues of what services it can and can't afford to maintain, and every city councillor is going to speak out on one side or the other of such issues. So that's still just WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't inherently make him more notable than any of the others, because it's just a normal thing to say about a normal, common local issue. Get back to us if and when he manages to foment a campaign of opposition so massive that it shuts down the entire city for weeks — that would be noteworthy. Bearcat (talk) 08:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I just put that in as one example, but I think he's got a bunch more cites. Would it be alright if I let other editors who have worked on pages about local politicians know that these discussions are underway? Or is that considered canvassing? Bangabandhu (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Norcross, Georgia. Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victory World Christian School[edit]

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

Independent primary school where a redirect seems unhelpful. It is independent of any parish or overarching religious affiliation, and since it is not a government school, the local school board or municipality wouldn't seem to be good targets either. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Norcross, Georgia. I see no reason why the community article wouldn't be a good target. John from Idegon (talk) 10:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Norcross, Georgia, as per usual where a school district is not available. Closer please remember to add the {{R from school}} template to the redirect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 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) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priam Corporation[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. It clearly existed, and searching does turn up sources that substantiate that. But it was gone after about ten years, and as the article says was "one of many". No in-depth coverage. MB 15:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a business listing with nothing convincing in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 19:00, 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) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhaan Rajput (Ruhan)[edit]

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

Hard to see any notability criteria being met. Bit parts and a role in a borderline short film. Article has a promotional tone. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ACTOR and its WP:TOSOON. FITINDIA (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer.Non-notable WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:53, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Gicco[edit]

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

Non-notable kickboxer - does not meet WP:KICK Peter Rehse (talk) 15:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable kick boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing that shows he meets the notability criteria for kickboxers, nor do I see the significant independent coverage required to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable WP:GNG and kick boxer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Senza Motiva[edit]

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

Delete -Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG - Article doesn't establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Only source listed is a local weekly entertainment paper announcement of it's local-band compilation CD. Speedy (A7) was declined with reasoning "decline A7: artist has article hence connection to notable person". An article on an artist or band that does not indicate that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. Notability is not inherited. Google searches, HighBeam, and Books returns "no results". CBS527^Talk 15:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and is poorly sourced. DrStrauss talk 16:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom.Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean (Mr. Bean episode)[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep while I think a legitmate debate can be had about the other installments of the Mr Bean series (although I would incline towards keep), I think there is a very strong argument for retaining as a) It won the Rose d'Or b) It was the first in a highly successful and culturally influential series that spawned an animated spin-off and two films. I agree the article could be improved, but this is not a reason to delete it per Wikipedia:Notability. Dunarc (talk) 15:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it was influential in spawning a series, the films and animated spin-off were spawned from the programme after its run, not from this episode. In addition, any awards that the programme earned in each episode, can be easily mentioned on the article about Mr. Bean, rather than in separate ones for the episodes. These articles have not been updated at all, and have had notifications at the top of them about needing citations and references to back up the information in them, while also lacking proper information on some aspects - production information is non-existent or contains only a little that focused on filming locations, while containing some information that doesn't relate to the section at all; broadcast does not mean anything, when reception is not having any information, nor anything to back up the number of viewers for the original transmission. In short, I hardly believe a Speedy Keep is justified. GUtt01 (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator has not stated a valid deletion rationale. The fact that it may be missing production information and references does not mean it should be deleted as AFD is not clean up. Such information can be found here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am sorry Pawnkingthree, but the link you provided does not provide such information; it only provides the plot summary, the broadcast info, the production team and the guest cast, but nothing else.GUtt01 (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It answers one of your complaints, lack of references. I am still not sure why you nominated all of the episodes for deletion. If you had concerns that there is not enough information for standalone episode articles you could have discussed it on the List of Mr Bean episodes talk page or even redirected them there. In my view there are enough sources out there to satisfy WP:GNG as it is an extremely well known programmes and many of its sketches and episodes have received independent coverage, for example this from the Telegraph and this from the Metro. It makes more sense to discuss the sketches in the context of their original episodes. --Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that upon examination of the links, I can't see how these could be used. They discuss the sketches, and not the episodes themselves. The main issue is that these articles are not well built as they could be. The other factor is the programme only had fifteen episodes. If it had around twenty or more, I could justify keeping them, and merely putting forward on the List of Mr. Bean Episodes article the need for wikipedians to work to improve them. I can't really see any justification for separate articles on each episode; for the films, I do, because they had a major storyline to them of exceptional length, and certainly provided information that covered their production, reception to critics and audiences, and so forth.GUtt01 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Personal assertions such as I can't really see any justification for separate articles on each episode are not terribly interesting, it's again an argument to be avoided, see WP:BELONG. Arguments at AfD should be founded in policy, guidelines, and precedent determined by the community. — Sam Sailor 22:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:04, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per strong arguments above. Lepricavark (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse of Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This episode won a BAFTA award. [3]--Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - With respect, the sections on Awards is hardly essential in the article; it can clearly be placed within the main article, and detail the awards the programme got, whether on a whole or for certain episodes.GUtt01 (talk) 08:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But the point is that this individual episode won a major award, which means that it has achieved significant independent coverage and thus this individual episode passes WP:GNG. Therefore this article should not be deleted.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may have won a major award, but such things can be covered in the main article about the programme, not on an individual episode. GUtt01 (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of correction, it won an EMMY, not a BAFTA.GUtt01 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It won a Bafta as well. I have already provided a reference showing you that.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Sailor said everything I was thinking. South Nashua (talk) 18:42, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eightball Records (US)[edit]

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

There is a complete lack of reliable secondary sources. Jacona (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This page was just started and due to certain circumstances, it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Also, "reliable secondary sources" are irrelevant as a reason for deletion, especially when one of those sources is All Music Guide. The original article had information about a non-existent Australian record label of the same name. I (however) changed the article, under the assumption that it had false information, with the information of 'this page' only two days ago and added a reliable sources along with their website. However the edits were later reverted and split into two different pages by User:Dl2000. However I have not had the time to proceed with further edits as I nominated Eightball Records (Australia) for deletion with hopes of moving Eightball Records (US) --> Eightball Records after it was over. After research, this article does have secondary sources in the mix. Here are Billboard magazine articles mentioning Eightball Records (US), some of their musical releases, and development of the label including change of A&Rs. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] Adding those to article definitely proves notability. Horizonlove (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since Eightball Records (Australia) has been deleted, I propose that Eightball Records (US) be moved to Eightball Records. Horizonlove (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was trying to do some quick research as to why the Australian Eightball Records was deleted. It was probably properly deleted, but wow did I come across a lot of sources for the US version. This label has been written about in both Billboard and CMJ, giving it notability via GNG, and if those magazines are writing about it the label almost certainly has cultural significance. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect - Keep or redirect to DJ Smash. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know what is going on with you and these redirects, but I think this article is far too good for that. It definitely meets the WP:GNG requirements. Perhaps you should review the complete history to get better understanding of why this page was nominated as I briefly explained above. Horizonlove (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I would like to see the article kept. If that cannot be kept, I simply want the history kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean Goes to Town[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Trouble with Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean Rides Again[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:16, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas, Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor does it cite enough references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bean in Room 426[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing proper on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do-It-Yourself Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mind the Baby, Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nom.Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Back to School Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nomination.Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Off, Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, except for filming locations, has nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per nomination.Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, nothing on its reception when broadcast, nor cites any real references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hair by Mr. Bean of London[edit]

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

This article contains no proper information on the episode's production, its reception when broadcast, nor cites any actual references for the information within. GUtt01 (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 22:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable WP:TVSERIES.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Best Bits of Mr. Bean[edit]

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

This article contains no information on the episode's production, its reception when broadcast, nor cites any references for the information within GUtt01 (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the notability guideline for TV-series and per long established precedent in WP:BCASTOUTCOMES: "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept as they are considered notable." I think it is fair to say that Mr. Bean has been widely broadcasted and rebroadcasted internationally for the past 25+ years, according to the video here in "190 territores around the world". We have the parent article at Mr. Bean (not nominated for deletion), we have the episode list at List of Mr. Bean episodes (not nominated for deletion), and then we have 15 individual episode articles (all are up for unbundled deletion). This structure is the accepted standard per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television and is fine per WP:SPINOFF with a {{Main}} in Mr. Bean#Episodes per WP:SS. Lack of information on the episode's production is not a policy based reason for deletion, it is not even an article requirement, see WP:TVPRODUCTION. A few words on its reception when broadcast would certainly be nice, but is not mandatory, see WP:TVRECEPTION, and again, its absence is not a policy based reason for deletion, it's a WP:NOTBUILT argument. I agree with nom that most of these 15 articles are poorly sourced, but it is a WP:UNRS argument to be avoided, as WP:ATD-T (policy) specifically suggests tagging for such problems, and because notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And finally there is the question: why take these article to AfD in the first place instead of considering WP:ATD-M (policy) into List of Mr. Bean episodes or a WP:ATD-R solution (policy)? If the titles did not exist and were requested at WP:AFC/R, I would not hesitate with responding to the request by creating them as categorized {{R to TV episode list entry}} redirects. — Sam Sailor 22:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the excellent explanation by Sam Sailor. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:11, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man 2[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Rationale still remains: "Neither entry is known as "Man 2". As "Man 2" isn't mentioned at either article, it fails WP:DABMENTION." -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those with an interest in the PROD: Boleyn, Narky Blert, and Prisencolin. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not some sort of txtspk dictionary. Narky Blert (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boleyn (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Man 2" is "manslaughter in the second degree", which is mentioned in Manslaughter (United States law), so it should be common enough to be a redirect. "Man 2" is also apparently a homophone for Mantoux, although that might not suitable for inclusion.--Prisencolin (talk) 18:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Man 2" is not mentioned in Manslaughter (United States law). -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were "Man 2" added to Manslaughter (United States law), I want a citation, or I'm calling it a made-up name. Narky Blert (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can see the argument for Man 2 as a redirect - but only if we had an article specifically on Manslaughter in the 2nd Degree, which we don't. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manslaughter in the 2nd Degree was a redlink when User:Ultraexactzz wrote that, but I am creating a redirect now for it to Manslaughter (United States law)#Manslaughter in the second degree (see my vote "Redirect" below). --do ncr am 04:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 10 Man 2. No real dab entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is an inquiry about sourcing (not by me) at Talk:Manslaughter#Man 2. I am neutral. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The term "man 2" is included in American TV shows of the police drama kind, perhaps especially or only ones set in New York City or New York State, and with export of the TV shows the term is exposed world-wide. I just edited at Manslaughter (United States law) article to cover the first degree vs. second degree distinction, which was not otherwise addressed in the article, and I inserted a wp:anchor suitable for a redirect target. "Man 2" can be redirected to Manslaughter (United States law)#Manslaughter in the second degree. --do ncr am 04:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Hearne[edit]

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

Article on a promoter of WP:FRINGE ideas which is drawn entirely form affiliated and/or primary sources. Virtually all content is by WP:SPAs, with a strong hint of autobiography or promotion. Google shows no obvious reliable independent sources on which a more neutral article could be based. Guy (Help!) 13:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep Then maybe some effort should be made to look for sources [10], now I have no idea if this is RS, but it is third party. We also have this [11], and this [12] all found by clicking the "news " link in this AFD. It is clear the article needs work, that is not reason to delete. It is a reason to make an effort to improve it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through several pages of results, checking for non-trivial RS. There's a lot of churnalism, and some namechecks sufficient to justify a redirect to lucid dreaming, but I did not find a single neutral and independent treatment of Hearne, the subject of the article, outside of blogs. A lot of reality-based blogs rip him a new one for his nonsensical ideas, but those are not RS. Right now we have an unbalanced article because it was written by him or his PR, and the sources are all recycled press releases, and I can't see how that can be fixed. Some good solid sources would be fine, at the moment this is, at best, WP:BLP1E. Guy (Help!) 11:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you disregard all books on the subject (as being fringe,of course) then yes the coverage is not great.Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this RS [13]?Slatersteven (talk) 13:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SOAP is the only possibility here. jps (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete references to his own publications are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG not met outside of in-universe sources. -Roxy the dog. bark 10:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "in universe" refers to fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I have also found this [14] but am having trouble fnding the actual article, so can those who value policy have a go at finding it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)~~It's the one above.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is in dutch, is it any good [15]Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the news section of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. It mentions Hearne and describes his dream machine. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty RS then and establishing notability?Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the news section is an RS, but it isn't discussion, at least the bit I could see isn't, it's just description of his machine. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, his articles have been published by reputable sources, he seems to be a key researcher in his field of lucid dreaming (a legitimate field of study), and has been covered in sources which report on his chosen field. Randy Kryn 13:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being published by reputable sources doesn't establish notability. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask again [16] Does this?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tokaj FC[edit]

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

Appears just to be a local team playing in county (not national) league. Nothing to indicate meeting notability WP:GNG or WP:ORG KylieTastic (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:FOOTYN.No evidence.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 13:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alice City[edit]

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

This appears to have been a vaguely proposed construction project that never even approached implementation and has been dead for many years. Even aside from the WP:CRYSTAL concerns, reliable sources are almost nonexistent; the only real source I could track down was a half-page article in the Apr 29, 1989 issue of New Scientist, which discussed it briefly in the context of a Japanese program to develop technologies for underground construction. After 11 years, I think it's time to put this article to rest. Layzner (Talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Layzner. There are no reliable references online explaining if there has been any progress about this project. I think because of that it should be deleted. Xaxing (talk) 02:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article 2nd ext link exists at WayBackMachine. It was helpful to search books using ("Alice City" underground) which found: [New Scientist article], [Underground Infrastructures (book)], [Megacities, Labour, Communications (book)], [Seizing the Future (book)] and many others. The number of books indicates a degree of interest in the subject to be an exception of WP:CRYSTAL imo. Gab4gab (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If some of those sources could be turned into an article about the project itself - not necessarily the proposal, as this article seems to be - then it might work. Certainly there's some argument for notability in that context. But that's a taller order than your typical AFD cleanup. An article might be warranted - but this doesn't seem to be that article. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmmm I did my best to address the reasons for deletion listed in the nom. These ideas about an article not about the proposal... I might have stepped into a swamp too deep here. Gab4gab (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems interesting, my guess is that it has historic merit as a proposal for an underground city, and it is good for Wikipedia to "remember" that for the world. And it seems that there are sources about it. Notability is not temporary. I don't get the distinction asserted between an article about the "project" vs. about the "proposal". It's an article about a proposed project. --do ncr am 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) 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chanchal Bharti[edit]

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

does not pass WP:GNG. Finalist of a show is single event ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. - TheMagnificentist 18:48, 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 keep. Kurykh (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of film spoofs in Mad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Full of original research, since the parodies themselves rarely state directly what they are a parody of; thus, one can't verifiably say that say, "Silly" is a parody of "Sully" just because the titles are similar. The only source that could verify as such is Doug's Mad Cover Site, which is cited excessively in the article; however, it is a personally run fansite and thus not a reliable source.

The inclusion of artist and writer credits, genre, and running totals of how many artists/writers worked on what, also run afoul of being indiscriminate information of use only to fans. These are also original research, as many issues either didn't contain bylines or removed them by mistake, so the artists/writers are either known to the fanbase entirely through their style, through personal connections, or through posts on Facebook or old forums.

Finally, some of the artist/writer credits are known by the fanbase to be pseudonymous, but few have been verified reliably, thus bringing the list's accuracy into even further question. Therefore, there is no way that this list could ever be complete and accurately sourced. Also, the overwhelming consensus to delete in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues shows that there is no need for such lists. Nor is there even a precedent for such a list.

Previous AFD kept entirely due to invalid rationales such as WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, and WP:PRETTY. No valid arguments were given to keep last go-round. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- excellent, accurate nomination. This list is inherently original research with no prospect of being sourced reliably. Reyk _YO! 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN as a topic that is notable as a whole, which is the consensus of the previous discussion. WP:CSC recognizes short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group as valid list articles. Diego (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diego Moya: How are they "Verifiably a member" if there is no secondary sourcing to verify what they are parodies of? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who says there is no sourcing? [17][18][19] That they currently are not included in the article is not a reason for deleting a topic. Note that per WP:Verifiability policy there is no need that each individual entry is referenced to a secondary source (although there are those too, see [20],[21]), only that the topic as a whole is. Diego (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diego Moya: This still does not consistently address all the parodies. Most of them can not be independently confirmed as being parodies of a given work without delving into WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to talk about particular entries that should be removed for lack of references, the proper place to do it is the articles talk page. The purpose of AfD is not article cleanup, but deciding on the notability of the topic based on the availability of sources covering its subject as a whole.Diego (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not cleanup, but verifiability. There is no way to verify that all of these are actually parodies of what the list says they are; thus it is WP:OR on its face. It is also WP:IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entries described in the links I provided above are verified parodies, so your argument doesn't apply to all of these entries; therefore it isn't a valid reason to delete topic as a whole. If your position is that some entries are not verified, that is a cleanup issue. Diego (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Mad issues closed as delete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Diego (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just found useful information there needed to flesh out a reference in another WP article. Parody is an acknowledged genre, and that word rather than the unencyclopedic 'spoof' should appear as the article's title if the decision is to keep it. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzilikazi1939: WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument. Also, how can we prove that all of these are parodies of the stated works without delving into WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A little humility from TenPoundHammer would be welcome. Deletion of the article would only be justifiable if there were no sources, other than the Doug Gilford site, that tied the films to their parodies. But there are already a few secondary sources given in the article, as has already been pointed out, and here are two more such sources: "Mad Magazine veterans will discuss movie parodies at Omaha event", by Micah Mertes / World-Herald staff writer, Aug 10, 2016; Grady Hendrix's film comment published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center, in the March/April 2013 issue. Deletion when there are valid sources like these would be an act of self-righteous vandalism. The most that would be justifiable is posting an appropriate tab. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mzilikazi1939: That does not verify all of them though. Nor does it verify the artists and writers involved -- again, many were not given byline credits in the issue, and many are known through the fandom to be pseudonymous. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You keep asking the same question, even though it has been pointed to you that we don't need to prove that all of these parodies are verifiable in order for the article to be kept, only that the topic itself has been covered by RSs, which has already been done. Diego (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that an article on the concept of parodies is a bad idea. There are sources to verify the overall concept of "film/TV parody in MAD" and give select verifiable examples. But you're still not answering this: why list all of them if we can only prove some of them without breaching WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice from his first deletion attempt in 2013 that it is TenPoundHammer's style to come back at anyone who raises a valid point, as if his shouting will drown out their voice. Let me remind him that what we are discussing is an article with the title "List of film spoofs in Mad"; artist and writer credits may be of interest but are not essential. Title of the film parodied and date of issue are what are important in terms of the article's subject. More verification of these from secondary sources is at issue, and that such sources exist (and were provided) was pointed out in the 2013 discussion, the conclusion from which TenPoundHammer is refusing to abide by.

What seems most at issue is what film is being parodied, since some are now fairly obscure. MAD magazine itself has now begun to identify the most high profile and in this case use of a primary source is legitimate. Some titles are so obviously transparent, as in the case of "Dr Zhicago" (Dr Zhivago) and "The Odd Father" (The Godfather), that it is arguable that to identify one with the other is not WP:OR but a case of translation, which the guidelines allow. To sum up, since there are multiple sources identifying which film is being parodied, and since authorship and artwork are not the point at issue here, there can be no case for deletion of the article. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But are there sources to identify the parodied film 100% of the time? Is there a secondary source proving that say, "Silly" is a parody of "Sully"? I sure as hell can't find one. There's no point in listing them if you can't prove all of them. Also, isn't "it sounds like the original title" blatantly WP:OR? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question of "Is "Silly" a parody of "Sully"?" is less than ideal for this discussion -- because there are certainly sources that prove it. Tom Richmond's describes the Sully parody illustration in his blog -- as he does for all his artwork.. And Mad Magazine often described each parody in issue descriptions in its advertisements. For recent parodies like "Silly," WP:OR is not a factor. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 23:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CactusWriter: @Mzilikazi1939: If you think the article has good sources, then fucking add them. They won't add themselves, you know. Funny how everyone seems to think that "see, see, sources totally exist, I found a bunch of them" is all you need to do, and the article will magically absorb those sources overnight and become an FA. WP:BURDEN and all that. If you can be bothered to dig the sources up in the first place, then FUCKING ADD THEM. Otherwise you're just being lazy. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... you state that you can't find a source. And when it's demonstrated that it's verifiable by providing a link to one (the definition of WP:BURDEN), then you lose your shit. I don't usually acquiesce to tantrums but I've gone ahead and added the cite per your "request." Now I've got to get back to a busy afternoon of being lazy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Per Diego's comments. And my demonstration above that the list overcomes WP:OR because cites do exist. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:LISTN: Have the parodies been covered as a group in multiple reliable sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me the clinching source is the Cahiers du Cine-MAD article published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center. This covers the whole series of parodies up to 2013, identifying many of the films parodied and typical strategies in doing so. It is moreover cited in the lead, although more might have been made of it. The demand that each and every item in the list should be referenced is not in accord with WP guidelines in WP:LISTN, the most relevant passage in which I quote here. "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

In the light of the above, the recent disruptive tagging of the article under discussion by User:TenPoundHammer is revealed as vandalism, as is his refusal to accept the 2011 decision not to delete. Administrators will take note, I am sure. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"his refusal to accept the 2011 decision not to delete" I think waiting six years to re-nominate is a fine demonstration of acceptance. Remember that acceptance does not mean you change your mind, and consensus can change. It's not like the original discussion was unanimous - the closer even commented that it was effectively "no consensus." Argento Surfer (talk) 15:14, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the last discussion was closed in November 2013, so three years and a quarter. That ended with the assurance that sources existed and therefore the contention that the article should be deleted because there weren't was wrong-headed. If the proposer really cared, he could have located and added them himself. He didn't, claimed there were none and was caught out by one of the commenting editors above. Moreover, since he now seems to have withdrawn from this dialogue, perhaps that is an indication that, as you say, a change of mind can occur. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN as ably demonstrated by Mzilikazi1939. Kudos. Andrew D. (talk) 18:21, 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 no consensus. Actually, there is consensus to redirect and merge to the extent editorial consensus supports - but there's no consensus about where to. So that's left as an exercise for editors to figure out... Sandstein 21:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wave Feminists[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - some news buzz surrounding the Women's March on Washington, but next to nothing on the New Wave Feminists beyond that. This should be covered in the Women's March on Washington article. Huon (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No reason this article should be aborted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeeVeeed (talk • contribs) 20:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note I just found a source that interviewed the New Wave Feminists. This was long before the Women's March. The source is here. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 21:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra Note - I also found this source. this source, which is ok. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect I did an online search for <"new wave feminists" -"women's march"> and all I got of meaning was the same article linked above by Riley. Redirect it to the relevant section, add {{R to section}} and {{R with possibilities}} and maybe someone can come along and expand it in the future. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/redirect~~ Just to be fair, I ran news archive searches with some likely keywords, and found nothing. The article found by User:RileyBugz in The Federalist certainly counts towards notability, ~~but even added together it is not enough to justify a stand-alone article unless more sources are found. Failing that, Merge & Redirect to 2017 Women's March.~~ There is too much coverage of this incident to advocate delete.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found Another source, I tried a different search, Here's coverage of NWF in Patheos. [22] from a year ago. Not sufficient, imo, but it seems possible that a competent editor might be able to bring this article up to snuff.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change to tepid Keep Changing my iVote after running a news search, now that the inauguration / Women's March feel like ancient history. The fact is, as shown in this news search by date, that this incident continues to get a good deal of coverage. Here, just as examples, are the Worcester, Massachusetts Telegram & Gazette (big city daily)[23] and the Weekly Standard (national political weekly) [24].E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Related to feminism/gender studies/anthropology/women's studies. Michael Ten (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael Ten appears to misunderstand. This is not an article about an idea; it is an article about an activist group with this name.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropologists and political scientists study activists groups, no? Seems like potential data for political scientists or anthropologists. Academics study social movements. Michael Ten (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do E.M.Gregory's provided sources make the article meet WP:GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the source found by User:RileyBugz: [25] in The Federalist, it does provide a portrait of this organization.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to third wave-feminism. DrStrauss talk 16:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That truly doesn't work, Third-wave feminism asserts women's right to have an abortion, whereas this is a group of self-defined anti-abortion feminists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Target for redirect So, there is Pro-life feminism. Perhaps this article could be redirected and merged to a very brief summary at that article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a news source; their kerfuffle with the Women's March is a flash in the pan, and there aren't any usable sources on the group that precede the kerfuffle. They get mentioned in passing in a couple of sources on how the anti-abortion movement tries to rebrand itself, but I'm not sure that those sources justify even a partial merge to anti-abortion feminism as opposed to (maybe) a mention in anti-abortion movement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obviously needs improvement, but this group generated news prior the recent event with the women's march.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21]^[22]^[23]^[24]^[25]^[26]^[27] Sondra.kinsey (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Graham, Ruth (11 October 2016). "The New Culture of Life". Slate. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Samantha Watkins (19 February 2016). "Pagans join increasingly diverse pro-life youth movement led by atheists and feminists". The College Fix. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Sidney Callahan (14 March 2016). "The persistence of pro-life feminism". America Magazine. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Kristina Deyong (October 27, 2016). "New Wave Feminists give talk on feminism in the pro-life movement". The University News (St. Louis University). Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Pro-Abortion Activists Freak Out New York Times Putting Picture of Pro-Lifers on Front Page". lifenews.com. 3 March 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Can Feminists Really be Pro-Life on Abortion? Meet Two Pro-Life Women Who Are". lifenews.com. 10 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ David Marcus (8 June 2016). "New-Wave Feminists Are Pro-Life Advocates' Future". The Federalist. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Why The Left Has Not Won The Culture War". The Federalist. 14 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "As Catholic Prolife Leaders Climb in Bed with Trump". patheos.com. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Kristen Walker Hatten (8 July 2016). "Dallas sniper attacked my home". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Dallas officer who apologized to Black Lives Matter is shining example of humility". Dallas Morning News. 15 July 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Uncanned Abortion Activism: New Wave Feminists Interviewed". patheos.com. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa (4 May 2016). "With Trump, GOP hands Libertarians golden opportunity". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa (8 July 2016). "Fear is blinding us". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "WATCH: These Pro-Life Feminists Tackle Pro-Abortion Rhetoric in a Hilarious Way". lifenews.com. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "The Anti-Abortion 'Seneca Falls' - Right Wing Watch". rightwingwatch.org. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Confronting The Truth About The Pro-Life Movement After Hellerstedt". dailycaller.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Kristen Walker Hatten (27 June 2016). "SCOTUS abortion decision is misogyny in action". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Kristen Hatten. "Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law harms women". commercialappeal.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ Laura Hanby Hudgens (9 November 2016). "A Pro-Life Feminist's Lessons For Her Daughters". The Federalist. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Clinton's abortion extremism is being rejected by some surprising groups of people". lifesitenews.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Secular, Feminist, and Pro Life: These Allies Against Abortion Might Surprise You". lifenews.com. 25 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Slate writer's attempt to debunk secular pro-lifers is an embarrassment". liveactionnews.org. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "We Are the New Pro-Life Movement". patheos.com. 14 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "The next generation of pro-life leaders are feminists". Dallas Morning News. 12 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "Pro-Life Group Petitions Media to Show the Diversity of Pro-Life People". lifenews.com. 23 December 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.
^ "I didn't have an abortion— choosing life for my son saved me". liveactionnews.org. Retrieved 11 February 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - TheMagnificentist 09:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tech house[edit]

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

Blatant hoax. No such genre exists, the books/magazines cited are made up. - TheMagnificentist 09:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm pretty sure this is a real thing. Denarivs (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': I don't think it's a hoax - I found this at AllMusic. It might be a relatively new or minor thing, though. I also see the term bandied about on forum posts and the like as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so recent - looks like this says 90s for when it was made. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A ten second Google search gives pages and pages and pages of music hubs, online magazines, online radios, etc etc treating it as a genre. (don't take my word for it, see for yourself) It takes pitifully little research to determine that it is blatantly not a hoax. Sylosin (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep don't be lazy, the term "tech-house" has been in existence since the mid to late 90s, plenty of music press coverage, easily confirmed. Acousmana (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into draft:Kl Dhingra. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kl dhingra[edit]

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

Promotional article for not notable businessman Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tobias[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reads like a CV, very few of the sources are acceptable and most of the article is unsourced Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Denarivs (talk) 02:37, 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 redirect to Elevation Worship. czar 06:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speak Revival EP[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to artist- nothing to suggest that this recording is in any way notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (or delete). Not much to say, it clearly fails WP:NALBUM. No relevant chart position, no indication of relevant airings or awards and no significant coverage anywhere. The sources in the article are just listings or super short news. Looking for other sources yieled no results, there isnt much on this EP out there. Due a lack of RS the album (EP) also fails WP:GNG generally. I therefore think the article should be redirected to the band's main article. Dead Mary (talk) 16:04, 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Open India International Challenge 2013[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event, violates WP:Sports event. Also support a merge to a main article titled Tata Open India International Challenge. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sportsfan 1234, you have brought seven event articles here, which belong to three different badminton tournaments: 2009 India Open Grand Prix was the inaugural event of Syed Modi International Badminton Championships; 2010 India Open Grand Prix Gold was the third edition of India Open & was India's highest graded badminton event in 2010; rest of the five event articles are of Tata Open India International Challenge.

Now, I can't pile on sources for seven different events in tandem. So, I will focus on your primary nomination, i.e. Tata Open India International Challenge 2013. The 2013 Tata open was a five-day event, which was held between 11–15 December 2013. And it got wide coverage in the national newspapers, e.g. [26]/[27], [28], [29]; [30]/[31], [32], [33], [34]/[35], etc. So, the article can be expanded from these independent reliable sources. In addition, BWF's official website has all details of this event – see here for day-by-day details & here for the draws of any particular discipline, e.g. see here for men's singles draws. After expansion, 2013 Tata open will be of same length as that of, let's say, 2016 Canada Open Grand Prix or 2016 U.S. Open Grand Prix Gold. So, we can't merge such large amount of details of every event in one article – Tata Open India International Challenge. Same is true about the other six event articles. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep –All the tournaments mentioned above were notable badminton tournament in India.--Stvbastian (talk) 05:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:26, 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. Kurykh (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Marci[edit]

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

Despite numerous biographies from associated organizations, there is no indication that this person meets WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. That the article reads like his PR person wrote it doesn't help. Previous AFD was no consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google Scholar citation numbers and Google Books hits may suggest meeting WP:NACADEMIC #1, depending on the numbers one uses as a standard. No doubt, this guy has put a lot of effort into self-promotion, but it seems like he's been successful at it, and we're not in a position to judge whether the attention he's received is deserved. The article still has major NPOV problems, but I'm not sure we can delete on that basis. —swpb^T 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly and unambiguously meets WP:PROF. In fields where journal articles are the primary means of communication, the influence of an individual as recognized by their peers is shown by citations. He had citations counts of 265, 182, 162, 145, 135, 123, 68, ... That's 6papers with over 100 citations each. Even in the most citation-heavy biomedical sciences, that's an excellent record. I don't think we've ever held that someone with two or more papers with over 100 citations each did not meet WP:PROF, The nom sees no indication of meeting WP:PROF, but I think that is due to the tone of the article. If we want to delete for promotionalism, that would be another matter, but in this case it is easily fixable and I'm doing that right now. (I do not think we should pay attention to claims of "easily fixed" unless the person making the claims or someone else interested is actually prepared to fix them.;) DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 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) 15:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Korea Express[edit]

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

Non notable delivery company, Can only find mentions, Fails NCORP & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 20:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as blatant as it gets for advertising and our policies delete it by this alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the article is entirely unsourced, but the company is South Korea's largest logistics company (this is somethign equivalent to DHL and FedEx). This is one of the articles which is worth saving. The company is 86 years old. See some of the sources

Bloomberg CJ Korea Express to Expand Into China to Grow Overseas Networks
Korea Joongang Daily CJ Korex pursues joint venture in Philippines, How technology is transforming logistics (brief mention), CJ Korea Express eyes use of self-flying drones (this looks like redressed PR though)
Korea Times CJ Korea Express buys Malaysian logistics company (source is about a routine acquisition though)
Yonhap CJ Korea Express sets up biz tieup with Chinese delivery firm (not useful for WP:CORPIND though, as it is reprinting what the company says), CJ Korea Express buys Malaysian logistics company (routine merge news)

The sources are not great here (and most wouldn't pass WP:CORPIND and WP:CORPDEPTH). But considering that this is the largest logistics provided, I think there are definitely sources in Korean which would be adequate to write an article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Purely promotional. Article lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. G-searches are turning up PR announcements and business listings - same for the above listed sources. Unfortunately the WP Koren article (CJ 대한 통운) doesn't have any better sources either. If someone could come up with better sources I will reconsider my !vote but as it stands article fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:GNG. CBS527^Talk 16:16, 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 A1, A7 Deleted by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ISideWith.com[edit]

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

Not sure if this passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No significant notability shown (24,415 Alexa rank isn't helping), and coverage outside of primary sources is lackluster. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 06:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete - possible CSD A7 failure. DrStrauss talk 12:39, 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 Speedy Deleted per A7 RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Rockstarr[edit]

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

Not notable. cyɾʋs ɴɵtɵɜat bʉɭagɑ!!! (Talk | Contributions) 06:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:25, 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. Malformed request. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Russell Square Publishing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebc1980 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. The subject of this article is a small recently establish publishing house in Malta. To make matters worse this publishing house's shareholders or ex-contributors appear to be having a dispute and using the Wikipedia article to make unsubstantiated claims against one another (see controversy section which keeps being re-added in various shapes or forms by anonymous users).

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by administrator. Speedy deleted for criteria A7. (non-admin closure)

Lâm Tân Quới[edit]

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

Not notable. No evidence provided in this article of notability. Google search doesn't turn anything up in English about this person. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable person. As newly created article, it could be speedy deleted for WP:CSD criteria A7. --Stylez995 (talk) 09:39, 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. Although there are a number of keep votes, they all rely on erroneous rationales. Those which rely on WP:NSEASONS are unsatisfactory since that guideline requires the team to have qualified at a minimum for the NCAA I Championship. In none of the seasons up for discussion did this team qualify. Those which rely on WP:EVENT are also unsatisfactory given that there is essentially no sourcing in any of these articles which is not clearly primary, even in the couple of articles which contain sufficient sourced prose to not be immediate WP:NOTSTATS failures. The simple fact of the matter here is that the initial arguments are robust and have not been rebutted in any way. There is no evidence that any of these seasons have received sufficient significant reliable independent coverage as a subject rather than a synthesis of match reports to satisfy wider GNG. Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team[edit]

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

Article currently being used as sports seasons as can be seen at VCU Rams men's soccer#Seasons as well as Template:VCU Rams men's soccer. Per WP:NSEASONS, none of the criteria are met to have a stand-alone article and should be deleted as a result. GauchoDude (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

– GauchoDude (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons in addition to WP:CRYSTALBALL:

– GauchoDude (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VCU Rams men's soccer, until there is a valid amount of information to allow it to be standalone. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, there appear to mistakenly be articles on all the seasons instead of only 1978. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no mistaking as I was mid-bundling. All of the articles listed above are under the same consideration for the same reasoning. Thanks, GauchoDude (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case Speedy Keep 2001, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2016. Both meet WP:SEASONS and WP:EVENT. It's almost laughable to see an issue in those articles are they are well developed, based on the main article and are well-sourced. Additionally, you need to specify sooner in advance then. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I fear you must be mistaken, WP:SEASONS is a task force for WikiProject Football whereas WP:NSEASONS is the notability guideline for sporting seasons. Please review the requirements for NSEASONS and share which you feel would best apply. Regardless of how "well developed" you feel the articles are, ultimately the WP:AMOUNT and quality of content is irrelevant if the stand-alone article doesn't merit existence in the first place per the guidelines above. Upon review, when references and citations even exist, it all looks to be WP:ROUTINE and very WP:PRIMARY in my opinion. GauchoDude (talk) 17:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have and I see no violations. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep the ones Quidster4040 mentioned, redirect others. The well-developed ones should be kept per WP:NSEASONS, and nominator shouldn't be seizing on an apparent mistaken link to discredit another user. Assume good faith, people. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Smartyllama: With "well-developed" not being an inclusion criteria per WP:NSEASONS, but instead a baseline-minimum of the articles that do qualify under the guidelines listed, please share why you believe those should be speedy kept. For me, as NSEASONS states, collegiate athletics must either win a national championship (generally for all levels) or make the post-season in a top collegiate level. I think (hope?) we can agree that collegiate DI soccer qualifies as a top collegiate level, however the VCU season articles above did not see the team participate in the NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship (which is also why I specifically didn't include 1997, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2012, nor 2013 in which they did appear) and thus don't qualify under any of the inclusion criteria. Thoughts? GauchoDude (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did, just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean he's wrong in thought. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - no need for individual season articles for college soccer. Merge any notable info back to main article. GiantSnowman 08:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That would make the article size way to big, and you have provided no reason why college soccer articles are illegitimate. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:59, 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) 05:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the recent season articles per Smartyllama. Also, I find it preposterous that the 2017 article is being nominated per CRYSTALBALL. Unless the nom intends to nominate for deletion every single article in every sport about a 2017 team season, that rationale should be removed from the nomination. Lepricavark (talk) 14:14, 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 keep. Notability established sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Multiple notable award winner in his field. Significant, non-trivial coverage in secondary sources. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ma[edit]

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

Never heard of this filmmaker. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Me-123567-Me (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has some good Gnews results and he's won two of Canada's highest film honours. He meets GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Keep Also, "I haven't heard of him" is a great way to sabotage an Afd. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the "Haven't heard of him" comment. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I see from this user's talk page, a concern about POINTy editing over Bearcat's creation of this article going back two years. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, six months, as the article didn't exist until last fall after he won the award at TIFF. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Sorry, misread that date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left the article after the speedy was declined to see if it would improve. It did not. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article most certainly has been "improved" since — both his CSA Best First Feature win and his CSA Best Screenplay nomination were announced in January of this year, and both have been added to the article already. And again, both his 2012 CSA nomination for Best Short Film and his TIFF win for Best First Feature meant that the article was already adequate to satisfy basic notability the moment it was created. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only has the guy already won two significant film awards that pass ENT, he's also a two-time Canadian Screen Award nominee — and that's in the class of awards (cf. Junos, Governor-Generals, Gillers) where even just being nominated is grounds for an article whether one wins the award or not. Even just one of those four distinctions would be an WP:ENT pass, let alone all four of them together. And I'll ditto that "I've never heard of the guy" is not, in and of itself, a valid reason for deleting an article — lots of people you haven't heard of are notable and lots of people you have heard of aren't. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject appears to be quite notable. I'm pretty sure none of us have heard of every person who has a biography on our site. Lepricavark (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment added Chinese name and some background info. Timmyshin (talk) 21:59, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Shahid (singer)[edit]

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

Notability suspicious! No notable works in music carrier. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 08:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak Keep Current sources are an interview (not helpful for notability) and an article about his band. I searched and could not find coverage sufficient for an article separate from his band. If significant coverage by independent RS are found I'd be happy to reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A significant number of new sources with minor coverage and a nudge from award nominations moves me to a weak keep. Gab4gab (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He may be notable per WP:MUSICBIO criterion 8, "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". A reliable source says "His solo album 'Nilambori', nominated for popular Meril-Prothom Alo awards, ..."[36] Wikipedia's article 15th Meril Prothom Alo Awards expresses it a little differently. It says he was nominated for the Best Singer (Male) Award for song "Ek Jibon", but that was one of the songs on his solo album Nilambori. "Ek Jibon" is certainly what he is best known for in his solo career. The Meril Prothom Alo Awards are a big deal in film. I don't know if they would count as a major music award.

I've added further reading to the article. Each entry includes only small nuggets of information, but WP:BASIC says that "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." Ten sources that all repeated the same sentence would not establish notability, but ten that each cover a different collaboration with different artists may. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Keep per sources found by Worldbruce. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 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 redirect to Gulshan Thana#History. All the content is already there. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 DCC market fire[edit]

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

blatant WP:NOTNEWS. Yes a big fire with lots of shops damaged but even a report two weeks after the event states no casualties or deaths. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep News coverage of event has reasonable WP:DEPTH. The article needs more in-depth content added, but the sources exist for it. Delete for now~~ Even though news sources covered the event with some depth, they are still mostly primary sources. Coverage of the event seemed to dry up around 19 January – more time is needed to establish whether the event has lasting significance for an encyclopedia. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC) (updated 08:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]
- Updated to support Merge & redirect proposal. The topic is verifiable, just not notable enough for its own article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Incubate~~ Merge Don't rush to create articles. It's too soon to say whether the fire will have enduring historical significance. In its favor, it received national coverage in Bangladesh and was picked up by news agencies PTI and IANS, so it reached India and places with large populations of Bangladeshi workers, such as Qatar. After the first few days there were a few related stories,[37][38][39] but until the investigation finishes (they've asked for three more months), there isn't likely to be factual analysis in secondary sources. The event could have a lasting impact (such as changes to building codes, fire safety regulations, etc.), but it's impossible to say at this time. ~~Incubate~~, Merge to Gulshan Thana as a reasonable alternative to deletion, until the long term effect of the event becomes clear.--Worldbruce (talk) 06:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed recommendation from incubate to merge following Noyster's persuasive argument. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A sentence in Gulshan Thana should cover it: Noyster (talk), 10:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

question Discussion of 2017 DCC market fire (LibStar—Sangdeboeuf—Noyster—Ibrahim Husain Meraj) It's great that four editors have participated, and good points have been made by all, but there hasn't been any discussion beyond staking out our positions. None of the participants so far think it should have been created or currently works as a stand alone article, so is there a disposition we can agree on that avoids it being kept as "no consensus"? An IP has, in effect, done what Noyster suggested, by adding a sentence to Gulshan Thana citing the article's three sources.[40] I'd be willing to change my recommendation to merge and redirect if that would help settle this. What do you say? Redirects are cheap, if down the road sufficient analysis is published to warrant an article, the redirect could be turned back into one, and it's in line with the subsections of policy WP:ATD. --Worldbruce (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll enlarge on my somewhat pithy "merge" !vote. (a) Why not keep? Per the !votes above mine and by analogy with the Exeter fire of October 2016, a major incident in anyone's book. That doesn't have its own article: it is briefly mentioned in the main Exeter article and more extensively in the one about the individual building at the heart of the blaze. In the Dhaka case, if there were a sizeable article about DCC Market the fire could be covered more extensively there, but we don't have that article yet, we only have Gulshan Thana which is a large downtown area containing the market, so that seems the best place to include the brief text under discussion. (b) Why not delete? Because we seek alternatives to deletion, especially where there is sourced content that isn't advertising, COI or otherwise problematic. "Merge" seems the best course here, per "Merging": Noyster (talk), 10:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect - I'm jumping in very late in the game to agree that this seems most suitable merged and redirected to Gulshan Thana. If at some point we obtain enough WP:RS to create a whole article at DCC Market, we can move the content over there. Hell, if the fire does wind up creating some kind of long-lasting national repercussions, we can always move the content back out to its own article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:24, 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) 15:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of television shows shot in Las Vegas[edit]

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

Long abandoned list, seems unnecessary as well. Also, many shows take place in las vegas, but are only partially shot there, what about shows where the characters have a trip to las vegas? Maintaining this article seems impossible (probably why it was abandoned). Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there is potentially a place for such a list but not in its current state, and as the nominator notes, not without clear bounds for inclusion. Perhaps the topic is better suited as a category. Wouldn't be opposed to an editor recreating (with better quality) at some point, but for now, delete. -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a category is a good idea, I don't think a narrow list like this is much use to anyone anyway. If someone were to make a category, and link all the articles in the list currently to it, this article would become obsolete immediately. More obsolete I mean. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The aforementioned more suitable

category has been created. — Wylie pedia 12:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per WP:NOTDUPE, the existance of an overlapping category isn't a valid rationale for deletion. More comments needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category suggestion was a good one, and has been done as noted above. I did find another article similar to this one at List of television shows shot in Pittsburgh. I'm slightly on the fence here, but on balance I don't see a need for this article that the category does not serve. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:50, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Rodowsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't verify notability. Successful, but didn't quite make the big time. Boleyn (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This [41] says he won a Bronze medal in 2012 in the World Junior Short Track Speed Skating Championships. That's not in the article because not much has been done since it was created in 2008. Per WP:NSPORT, "actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". There are no specifics for speed skating, but I would think that any World Championships would be considered major. MB 04:47, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the one competition award is still not genuine substance and comparing this to the article, it's simply not enough at all, especially when it's only a junior one. SwisterTwister talk 06:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:28, 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 keep. No prejudice to taking other courses of action after discussion and consensus on article's talk page, but the outcome of this AfD is definitely not delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ishema Party[edit]

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

Unsourced article on political party. Appears quite biased and more of a mission statement than an encyclopedic entry and in its current form it fails to pass WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 10:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - I think an article about Thomas Nahimana would be a better candidate, the party seems to mainly be a platform for his political ambitions. I'm not sure if the best choice would be to rename this article or to delete it and wait and see if a Nahimana article forms. Depending on the campaign running up to the August 2017 election, Nahimana and/or the party could become more significant figures, but who knows. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move/redirect~~ to Thomas Nahimana, the article is much better now, but is about the primary figure in the party. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Keep - Sorry to keep changing my !vote. I've only just started looking closer at the Nahima draft, and one of the sources (Rwanda: Le parti Ishema dévoile son programme à Bruxelles, Jambo News, May 16, 2013) is more about the Party itself and happens to be a few years old. I'll try to clean up the article from this source soon. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 02:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the article undoubtedly needs work, but AfD is not clean-up. I readily found three citations confirming the basics about the party and have added them to the article. Bondegezou (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the article undoubtedly needs work, but the Kagame government of Rwanda has a history of supressing and attacking any information in any language that speaks in less than glowing terms about the current Rwanda government. Therefore, in the interest of providing information frequently not available, I urge that the article be improved or moved to one covering Thomas Nahimana. Girlgeek_z(talk) 21:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Bondegezou:, @Girlgeek z:, @Uwumuremyi:, Uwumuremyi, you have also created a page, Draft:Father Thomas Nahimana. Do you mind if I clean that page up and move it to userspace (I'll try to do it tomorrow)? Once that is done, I still think the Ishema Party page should be a redirect to the page on Nahimana, as there are not yet any sources that I've seen about the party itself and not about Nahimana. But, whatever the consensus is here, I wanted to point out the draft (and possibly soon article) on Nahimana. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:20, 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 06:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatfield Archer Memorial Hospital, Rotifunk[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find evidence of notability. Adam9007 (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is also known as Rotifunk Hospital and as Hatfield-Archer Hospital, and is quite notable, having been destroyed/closed in Sierra Leone warfare and then reopened. See:

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

--do ncr am 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per User:doncram. There are sources under variant names as above, which seem to me to demonstrate clear notability.Eustachiusz (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:10, 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 keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:04, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Mamet[edit]

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

Basically zero news coverage via google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's one substantial source, anyway: Rick Kogan, "It's Mamet, As In Sister Lynn", Chicago Tribune, March 14, 1993. She's been nominated for a couple of widely-shared producer Emmys on Law & Order, and one Poe Award for TV episode writing; and a short film that she wrote was nominated for an Oscar [42][43]. No award wins that I've found so far. Worth reading, although it doesn't directly contribute to notability, is this 1993 LA Times column she wrote about her efforts to separate her career from her famous brother's. Would like to see if more shows up in this AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page was created in 2009, if the above article in the Chicago Tribune is all you can locate 8 years later then sadly the page should go.Sgerbic (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was a successful screen writer back in the 90s, I ran a news archive search, and lots of coverage comes up, profiles and news articles and reviews about quite a number of thinks she wrote, more than just name checking, discussions of her work and career. I added one or 2 sources before I concluded that there is more than enough to support notability. Assessment of her notability is undoubtedly hampered by the difficulty of locating information about a career that flourished in the 90s; it really is necessary to search newspaper archives, and many editors lack the facility to do so.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that clicking HighBeam in the tool bar at top of page will bring up not only coverage of her as "sister of", and "daughter of", but also some coverage of her career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that article is linked from stuff (mostly TV episodes) that she wrote.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Did a very minor source, expand, using the first few sources that came up on a search. There are many more sources available. I have the advantage of being able to use a paywalled Proquest news archive search. Mamet clearly had a moderately successful career as a writer.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to more recent expansion and improved citations, there is enough to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Expansion of article after nomination demonstrates enough significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Flash spotting. And merge what is of use. Sandstein 21:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flashboard[edit]

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

The article has no references to support a claim of significance for a military device. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:16, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference you young ignorant whippersnappers who dont understand lots of stuff was invented before computers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Weak Keep In addition to the offline ref added per the above unsigned comment, I found another source (added to the article). I don't doubt that this was a actual military device, and probably significant in the development of locating enemy artillery. The article is certainly poorly written and needs more sources and much improvement. MB 03:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MB - The source you added, "The Ranger Journal of the Defence Surveryors' Association", is a deadlink. I've been unable to find a link to fix it. If you have a chance would fix it? Thanks! CBS527^Talk 17:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From the "The Ranger Journal of the Defence Surveryors' Association" mentioned above, I learned the flashboard was invented by Lt. Henry Harold Hemmings. Searching on him led me to "How the War Was Won: Command and Technology in the British Army on the Western Front: 1917-1918" which I think is another source - but the google book snippet view doesn't display the relevant pages. MB 04:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are so arrogant. This may be as you call it a weak article, but I thought the whole point of wikipedia is that subsequent people gradually improve writing. You have to start somewhere. The article is a perfectly clear description of an interesting and unknown to many people, device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Engineman (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - pretty clearly this is/was a real thing, and it looks to me like in depth coverage exists, I agree that the article could use a lot of cleanup though. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Engineman: I suggest you read WP:SIGN and WP:CIV, considering your above comments, which frankly do not really help your case. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although it's tempting to consider a merge with Flash spotting. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep it appears depth can be added. -- Iazyges Consermonor [[Special:Contributions/Iazyges|<span style="color:#838996"
Delete - Article fails basic WP:GNG as all articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am at a loss as to where in depth coverage exists as searches of all Google engines, Highbeam, NYT, Bing and dictionaries are providing hits for Dam flashboards or a flashboard network and none for this "Flashboard". A search of Henry Harold Hemming, a Canadian Reconnaissance Officer, did turn up that he devised a flash spotting system referred to as "Flash Buzzer System" (see World War I Battlefield Artillery Tactics.) although I can find no instances where it is referred to as "flashboard". I suspect that this is the device that the article is referring to since the first source listed in article was co-authored by Mr. Hemmings. If that is the case, I would have no objection to a redirect to Flash spotting. CBS527^Talk 18:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, rather than delete. Comfr (talk) 22:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to flash spotting. Comfr (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to flash spotting. Perhaps not enough in-depth coverage for its own article, but certainly merits a mention in that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 07:02, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jason Allen[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced advertising article about a non-notable filmmaker. Searches did not turn up the type of in-depth sources needed to show they meet WP:GNG, and nothing in the article suggests he passes WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Onel5969: Per your opinion "nothing in the article suggests he passes"? Not the major network tv shows and major film he's worked on as listed on IMDb by THEIR Producers? Not the national television commercials for major brands? Not the internationally award winning movies in which he has acted and directed? Not the massive catalogue of musical and film work that has directly affected and given entertainment resumes to hundreds of artists? Rod Serling's people seem to feel he's worth noting.AtlasAlmanac (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, per general notability criteria. No evidence of satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. The subject is an independent filmmaker, musician and bit player, but has not yet received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's great the subject won some small film fest awards, but the only source I've found so far that is not affiliated or a PR site is this blurb in the Arizona Republic. If AtlasAlmanac can provide more significant, sourced coverage, notability may be clearer. From the intimate, in depth (unsourced) coverage and the defensive tone above (as well as allegedly creating this promotional photo), I feel AtlasAlmanac may have external connections with the subject, and would refer them to Wikipedia's Conflict of interest guidelines and policy on paid contribution disclosure. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Animalparty!: your reason: "has not yet received sufficient coverage to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia" -- Wikipedia has over 5.23 Million articles just in the English version of Wiki alone. The World Britannica and Funk Wagnalls Encyclopedias each (actual real worldwide encyclopedias as you alluded to) contain about 20,000 pages. This must mean that Wikipedia features at least 5.21 Million that are non-worthy of listing in an "Encyclopedia" and should also be deleted. No one is being paid or paying for the article although I have been close to his career for many years and have witnessed his accomplishments and personal facts from him personally. Do you think the personal bio of every big celebrity on Wiki came from a strange fan or editor? No. Reliable info originated from someone close to them. Your speculation: "as well as allegedly creating [[:File:Michael Jason Allen.jpg|this promotional photo"-- Would it satisfy you if his photo was the standard and typical "red carpet premiere" photo or a photo from the set of a movie or on stage performing at a big concert? If so, those ARE available as well. Thousands of Wiki images of people are promotional photos. What's your point with the photograph? AtlasAlmanac (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AtlasAlmanac: please read Wikipedia: Notability, and provide evidence for notability. My opinion and your opinion of the subject irrelevant to deletion discussions.--Animalparty! (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A masterwork of promotional prose without a single reliable source, and a list of unreliable ones, about half of them IMDB, which is generally not considered a reliable source, and other sources, iTunes and the subject's own website, which are neither independent nor reliable for establishing notability. By definition, the subject of the article fails the Wikipedia General Notability Guideline, which states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The article subject also does not meet criteria in: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals or Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Entertainers. If sufficient reliable and independent sources were found to justify keeping the article, it would still require a top-to-bottom rewrite to cleanse it of an egregiously promotional tone, which violates the fundamental Wikipedia principle: neutral point of view. The author of the article admits on this Discussion page that, "I have been close to his career for many years and have witnessed his accomplishments and personal facts from him personally," which, regrettably, is evidence of violation of another basic Wikipedia policy: no original research, which is not a permissable substitute for reliable independent sources, because it can not be verified by readers. DonFB (talk) 13:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person, sources are only iTunes, YouTube, IMDb and some self-published ones. - TheMagnificentist 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insignificant sourcing. No proof of verifiable notability beyond the article author's claims. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:17, 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. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pride (comics)[edit]

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

The article is pure plot, with no real-world info. Despite the huge background info provided here, the truth is that this super-villain team was used for just 2 or 3 story arcs of Runaways (comics), and that's it. They hardly need more mention than in the parent article's plot section. Aside from very minor trivial mentions (and unlike the Runaways themselves), those characters have not been used at any other comic books since then. Cambalachero (talk) 18:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Comiccruftspam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - minor group with minor impact. The bit about one of the members appearing unnamed in a film is weak, and belongs on the character page anyway. Not even worth redirecting. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let the page stay. They are the major enemies of the Runaways as well as being related to them. Plus, Alex Wilder has formed a new incarnation of the Pride that has some of Luke Cage's enemies amongst it's membership. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being major enemies of a team in a good-but-not-super-successful comic book doesn't make them notable. At best, this could be redirected to Runaways, but anyone searching for this specific term would presumably be aware of that page already. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We might see the Pride in live action appearance when "Runaways" comes to Hulu. Plus, Geoffrey Wilder is the only one that has his own page. Where on the Runaways page would they be placed even if it ends up being on the section for their Rogues Gallery? Plus, the Pride also had an encounter with Iron Man. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially appearing in a live action adaptation means they are potentially notable. Guessing that they will be is WP:CRYSTAL. If they do appear, then they can be discussed on Runaways (TV show). They're already mentioned throughout the Runaways page 15 times, and I don't think any merging is needed. I'm glad to hear they met Iron Man, but that doesn't grant them notability either. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I also discovered an alternate version of the Pride that was created by the Prime Evil in Codename: Genetix issue #3. If the page stays, they will be listed in the "Other teams called Pride" section. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerebellum below, or merge to Runaways (comics). BOZ (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found significant coverage from Screenrant, the AV Club, and this book. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't view the screenrant or AV Club links (internet filter), but the Joss Whedon book you link is hardly "significant coverage". The group is mentioned, but only 1) in a fictional context with no real-world discussion and 2) in direct reference to the actual topic - The Runaways. Based on the URLs and the snippets Google shows me, the other two links are also primarily about the Runaways and aren't focused on the Pride. Any info they include would fit just fine on the Runaways page. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The AV club article is basically the same as the Joss Whedon book, discussion of the Pride with the Runaways as the primary topic. The screenrant article has about 400 words at the end specifically about the Pride. To your points, 1) that's a good argument. I prioritize the GNG above MOS:WAF, so I think a topic can be notable without real-world discussion, but you're right that all the sources lack real-world discussion. 2) The primary topic is the runaways, but as the GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic." --Cerebellum (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cerebellum. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is not beyond repair by normal editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As TripleThreat said, the article can be repaired and Cerebellum listed decent coverage. -- S ^talk/_contribs 18:43, 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zymetech ehf.[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY, as tagged since August 2008. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMO it would be better to mention Zymetech in an article about the Swedish pharmaceutical company Enzymatica, due to the fact that Enzymatica bought Zymetech in 2016. I would say redirect to the latter, but that article does not exist.--Snaevar (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorially toned and no notability established. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Meshchaninov[edit]

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

Probably does not meet WP:NMUSIC. XXN, 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searched for a while for sources, but the best I could find were database entries or passing mentions to him in connection with his wife and collaborator Sofia Gubaidulina. See e.g. [44]. He's redlinked on the ru.wp disambiguation page. Υπογράφω (talk) 23:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sofia Gubaidulina. f eminist 04:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Vyvek (talk) 12:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC) (vote struck; user was socking) Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:22, 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 A7 Deleted by LadyofShalott. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Triple 5 Soul[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, what little coverage there is appears to be almost entirely blogs and passing mentions. Only exception I've found is this NYTimes article, but I don't think that this single cursory article is sufficient to establish notability. C628 (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles and websites that speak of this company, [45], [46], [47], [48]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaard (talk • contribs) 02:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:33, 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 keep. clear consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 09:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Issak Tavior[edit]

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

This article has no references to support a claim of significance. CatcherStorm ^talk 14:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a tag for unreferenced articles, and they can be prod"d and then deleted if references are not provided. Simply editing. IMO, opinions are bestvleft for things like notability and not things that can be corrected by a capable editor. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am sure I, and others, can find more sources than the one I just added. Problem solved.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Postcard Cathy (talk • contribs) 03:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think with some sources and some cleanup this article could be decent. As he won an award and has published some content I feel that he is significant enough to warrant an article. Xevus11 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person. A search on Google shows very few sources with only mentions of the name. - TheMagnificentist 18:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I ran a couple of searches in Englisn and added a few sources. Running into 2 familiar problems. the first is sourcing the moderately successful career of a concert pianist who was more active in the 1970s and 80s, making sources harder to find than with contemporary careers. The second is that I found him by searching his unusual surname with both Isaac and Isaak, and I suspect that there may be more hits found by searching with more variants.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per references added. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs clean-up but meets WP:GNG — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:43, 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Fernando[edit]

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

Claims some significance but there are no reliable sources I can find to back any of it up. The refs in the article are self-created as far as I can tell. Speedy deletion was declined by another admin, so I'm bringing it here instead. Creator is probably the subject himself, although that alone is of course not a reason for deletion. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSIC. Regards So Why 15:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. User talk:Becky Sayles 11:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. - TheMagnificentist 18:44, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Antoshina (artist)[edit]

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

References do not suggest the subject is notable CatcherStorm ^talk 17:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and try to improve for now. Claims of being part of permanent collections of Russian Museum and Tretyakov Gallery make her pass WP:ARTIST with no doubt. Problem is that her name is not always transliterated as Tania Antoshina. Sometimes she goes as Tatyana Antoshina, Tatiana Antoshina, etc. I am looking for Russian references as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add citations/references. Artist is notable. The Venice Biennial show cites other museum and major exhibitions: Moscow State Russian Museum, St. Petersburg, The State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow, The National Center for Contemporary Art (NCCA), Moscow, MUMOK, Wien, Neues Museum Weserburg, Bremen, National Museum of Women in the Arts, Washington DC, Corcoran Art Museum, Washington DC, and Casoria Contemporary Art Museum, Naples. All of those need to be added as citations, and this article would pass notability. Netherzone (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references do suggest that Antoshina is notable. Books, scholarly articles and collections are all indicators that she meets practically every criterion in WP:ARTIST. Mduvekot (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than enough sources to establish notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - judging by the listed collections, she passes notability. Also, the sources indicate she's been included in at least one biographical dictionary, which ought to be enough. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 20:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:54, 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:51, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Kaper-Dale[edit]

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

Individual does not meet the level of notability required for a politician, activist, religious figure, or any other standard. Being a candidate in an election does not grant this level of notability. ALPolitico (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This individual is notable outsde of his candidacy, being involved in immigration related events that recieved a range of media attention.XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Individual is not notable. Facebook page with 1,000 likes in a metro area of millions is limited. Being the Pastor of a Church that accepts refugees does not make a notable public figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.35.142.136 (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Keep - I found 196 Google News results for Seth Kaper-Dale. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Me-123567-Me. J 947 04:49, 1 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 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in independent sources (see search links above) = passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said, significant coverage from a variety of independent sources, in which he is the primary subject of the coverage, and not merely mentioned. Passes GNG. --HighFlyingFish (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Deletion alerts! at WikiProject Green Politics. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:18, 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 redirect to Vilnius University#Faculties (оr faculty status holding institutes). czar 07:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Law, Vilnius University[edit]

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

Faculty of a wider university. Does not seem to have independent notability. Can't find any in-depth sources about it (history of, significance) that are not self-published. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: claims to be a law school. Bearian (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vilnius_University#Faculties (оr faculty status holding institutes). No reason the law school is independently notable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vilnius_University#Faculties (оr faculty status holding institutes) per Eggishorn. I could not find reliable, independent sources in English that discuss the "Faculty of Law"'s history, significance, or their contributions to legal scholarship. I would be willing to change my mind if someone could show me sources, but for now, I think redirecting this is the best option. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:40, 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) 13:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Schmoker[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Winning a state boys' contest doesn't suffice under WP:NTENNIS, nothing else in the article suggests notability, and little independent coverage turns up in online searches, failing to meet WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is a well known man in Shanghai. He is just not that present on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.140.149 (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- A finding of notability based on being well-known calls for evidence of this under the terms of the general notability guidelines. We'd need to know there are a number of independent reliable sources giving him substantial coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 11:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete nothing to suggests any notability WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:NTENNIS. As attested to by IP above just a well known local. KylieTastic (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first reference is the very definition of trivial coverage, it mentions him in passing as someone who won a doubles championship (not individual state champion as implied int he article) ten years ago. The other source isn't a proper reference at all, and the only mention it makes of the article subject is that they are a contact person for events. That falls well short of general notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:29, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Edwardx (talk) 23:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 03:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:1G (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Kazaro (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Wrong venue; it's a user draft so it's not in article space and already up for nomination at MFD. You've been warned previously; don't nominate a draft here again. Nate • (chatter) 03:09, 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) 13:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Durnell[edit]

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

Candidate for the upcoming West Midlands mayoral election, 2017, fails WP:POLITICIAN so far. Sources to support that WP:ANYBIO or simply WP:BASIC is met have not been found. - Sam Sailor 01:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 01:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Mail is a credible unbiased local source to support political candidate status as seen on the West Midlands Mayor Election 2017 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconmanz (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. There are three references: a club that apparently intends to list every political candidate in the UK, a local newspaper article that does not even mention him, and his own web site. It seems the editors aren't even trying to establish notability. There are much better sources available, but in any case he's just another local government candidate. Candidates for local government positions are not inherently notable. Create a WP article if he wins, because a UKIP Mayor of West Midlands would be notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the above delete comment is true then why is the page for Andy Street up considering he has not won either. The Local newspaper article does mention his name and poltical standing so therefore passes WP:POLITICIAN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baconmanz (talk • contribs) 12:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Baconmanz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. — Baconmanz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Andy Street, an article initially created in our drafts namespace via the Articles for creation process, was vetted by a reviewer and moved to main namespace in October last year. The coverage we see in the sources cited in Andy Street is what makes him notable under WP:BASIC. That Pete Durnell gets a short article in the local tabloid Birmingham Mail does not make him notable under WP:POLITICIAN. — Sam Sailor 13:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local coverage of local elections always exists, so an as yet unelected candidate for office does not get over NPOL just because one or two pieces of WP:ROUTINE campaign coverage exist in their local media. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A person does not get an article just for being an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — if you cannot make and properly source a credible claim that he already passed a notability criterion for some reason independent of his candidacy (e.g. already having held another notable political office, or having preexisting notability in another career), then he has to win the election, not just run in it, to get an article because of his political activities per se. But this is based entirely on primary sources, with the exception of a single piece of WP:ROUTINE coverage of his candidacy in the local newspaper. Andy Street is not an equivalent situation, as he is properly sourced as being notable for more than just a mayoral candidacy alone. Note that Wikipedia is not "the media", and is not bound by a requirement to give "equal time" to all candidates in an election — our requirement on here is to look past the daily news, and filter it for what people will or won't still be looking for ten years from now. And for politicians, that means holders of notable offices, not unelected candidates for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Maybe one day, but not yet. Edwardx (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Apparently created as a campaign brochure by a single-purpose pro-UKIP account. AusLondonder (talk) 02:34, 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 per a mixture of WP:SNOW and WP:A11, since this was something that was made up one day by an associate of the article's author. There's no true point in dragging this out for a full week, as there really isn't any coverage out there and the main author for the series (Smirl) doesn't pass WP:NAUTHOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MacCollies Corporation[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable, should be deleted per both WP:GNG and WP:BKD. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is about a plot setting in a book series of dubious notability. If it belonged in wikipedia, it should be a part of a larger article about the author's work per WP:BKD. UnkleFester (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dennis Smirl clearly exists, and has clearly written the books described in this article... but they are self-published and the first volume has been available since 2013 without a single Amazon review. Jclemens (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to close this out - the only thing I can find that shows any sign of notability is this interview with a local library, but it also seems that this was an interview because he was working with them on a project. I highly applaud him for doing this, since we need more people working with libraries and their community, but there just isn't enough coverage to justify inclusion of this fictional company. I've blocked the editor who created the article since his username shows that he's one of the authors working on this series and he's been trying to promote his work on Wikipedia since signing up in 2015. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:58, 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.

[1] ttp://www.cincinnati.com/story/money/2016/05/03/new-single-family-homes-underway-college-hill/83872710/

[2] ttp://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/12/28/biggest-pittsburgh-area-bankruptcy.html

[3] ttp://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/news/2011/12/28/biggest-pittsburgh-area-bankruptcy.html

[4] ttps://www.probuilder.com/stealth-giant

[5] ttp://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212

[6] ttp://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212

[7] ttp://www.post-gazette.com/business/businessnews/2011/04/19/Maronda-Homes-seeks-bankruptcy-protection/stories/201104190212

[8] Graham, Ruth (11 October 2016). "The New Culture of Life". Slate. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[9] Samantha Watkins (19 February 2016). "Pagans join increasingly diverse pro-life youth movement led by atheists and feminists". The College Fix. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[10] Sidney Callahan (14 March 2016). "The persistence of pro-life feminism". America Magazine. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[11] Kristina Deyong (October 27, 2016). "New Wave Feminists give talk on feminism in the pro-life movement". The University News (St. Louis University). Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[12] "Pro-Abortion Activists Freak Out New York Times Putting Picture of Pro-Lifers on Front Page". lifenews.com. 3 March 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[13] "Can Feminists Really be Pro-Life on Abortion? Meet Two Pro-Life Women Who Are". lifenews.com. 10 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[14] David Marcus (8 June 2016). "New-Wave Feminists Are Pro-Life Advocates' Future". The Federalist. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[15] "Why The Left Has Not Won The Culture War". The Federalist. 14 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[16] "As Catholic Prolife Leaders Climb in Bed with Trump". patheos.com. 8 June 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[17] Kristen Walker Hatten (8 July 2016). "Dallas sniper attacked my home". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[18] "Dallas officer who apologized to Black Lives Matter is shining example of humility". Dallas Morning News. 15 July 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[19] "Uncanned Abortion Activism: New Wave Feminists Interviewed". patheos.com. 5 April 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[20] Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa (4 May 2016). "With Trump, GOP hands Libertarians golden opportunity". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[21] Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa (8 July 2016). "Fear is blinding us". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[22] "WATCH: These Pro-Life Feminists Tackle Pro-Abortion Rhetoric in a Hilarious Way". lifenews.com. 5 July 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[23] "The Anti-Abortion 'Seneca Falls' - Right Wing Watch". rightwingwatch.org. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[24] "Confronting The Truth About The Pro-Life Movement After Hellerstedt". dailycaller.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[25] Kristen Walker Hatten (27 June 2016). "SCOTUS abortion decision is misogyny in action". Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[26] Kristen Hatten. "Supreme Court decision on Texas abortion law harms women". commercialappeal.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[27] Laura Hanby Hudgens (9 November 2016). "A Pro-Life Feminist's Lessons For Her Daughters". The Federalist. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[28] "Clinton's abortion extremism is being rejected by some surprising groups of people". lifesitenews.com. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[29] "Secular, Feminist, and Pro Life: These Allies Against Abortion Might Surprise You". lifenews.com. 25 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[30] "Slate writer's attempt to debunk secular pro-lifers is an embarrassment". liveactionnews.org. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[31] "We Are the New Pro-Life Movement". patheos.com. 14 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[32] "The next generation of pro-life leaders are feminists". Dallas Morning News. 12 October 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[33] "Pro-Life Group Petitions Media to Show the Diversity of Pro-Life People". lifenews.com. 23 December 2016. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[34] "I didn't have an abortion— choosing life for my son saved me". liveactionnews.org. Retrieved 11 February 2017.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]