Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 9 January 11 January >

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 and salt by Graeme Bartlett. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caillou Pettis[edit]

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

Appears to be an attempt to promote a planned fan film, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Batman_Unveiled [1] [2]. The only reliable sources about him concern a bullying incident [3]. I don't believe this justifies an article. Ronz (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article should not be deleted because Caillou Pettis is a notable actor, director, and writer. He is also ranked 32,000 on IMDb's STARmeter,[1] essentially IMDb's popularity rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BatmanArkhamConroy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete: To respond to the article's creator, those are certainly not any reliable arguments to keep this page up. There are plenty of actors who appear in minor roles in film and television, higher ranked than this individual, that don't and shouldn't have pages. On the merits of this page, this is built entirely around first-hand sources, unreliable sources and IMDb, which is an unreliable database. Considering that you have been creating articles for projects developed by this individual, would I be correct in assuming that you're Caillou Pettis? DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 23:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I think we're potentially dealing with an up and coming long-term abuse case involving the socks SeinfeldSaltyDischarge and BatmanArkhamConroy. In any case, any disambiguation term utilizing Caillou Pettis should be salted. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 02:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation into the suspected connected accounts, due to the revelations surrounding their shared activities. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy and salt – I added a G4 to the page as well as a salt template and a note to salt the ... (actor) and ... (director) articles. Laurdecl talk 05:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://pro-labs.imdb.com/name/nm6569371
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ace (military) with much of the actual content suitable for merging into List of most successful U-boat commanders . Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Submarine ace[edit]

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

The concept of a "submarine ace" does not appear to exist. The term is used in literature to describe successful submarine commanders, but I could not find a definition, or a discussion of the term: Google books preview. This source discusses a submarine ace in terms of ships sunk: link. Likewise here: link.

I was not able to confirm that a commander became an "ace" after having sunk 100,000 tons. In this example, the top U.S. "submarine aces" has sunk "only" 93,000 tons (link). Clay Blair uses "ace" in quotation marks: link. His Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939-1942 is likely to be one of the definitive English-language resources on the German U-boat warfare.

I was not able to access the sources used in the article, but the logic seems to be: German U-boat commanders received the Knight's Cross after 100,000 tons sunk, ergo they are "aces", ergo all submarine commanders who sunk 100,000 tons are "aces". Which seems dubious. Passage from the article reads:

References

  1. ^ "The U-Boat Wars" by Edwin Hoyt (1984)
  2. ^ "Battle of the Atlantic" by Bernard Ireland (2003)

In summary, it's not apparent that U-boat or submarine "ace" is a concept, or that 100,000 tons sunk = ace, and I recommend deleting this article. I also nominated the related category for discussion: CfD: Category:Aces of the Deep.

K.e.coffman (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure The article's pretty fuzzy as it stands. Perhaps this counts as WP:NOTDIC and the term should be in Wiktionary rather than here? A quick search of Google books shows the term being used a fair amount but no standard definition appears to stand out. Indeed, flying ace points out that no standard definition of that—far more common—term exists, either. (Not using this for WP:OSE, BTW, just for pointers for anyone cleaning up the article.) Perhaps if the article were tightened up and referenced from works I could access as well as those already there I might vote keep; otherwise, I tend towards delete — Iadmc♫talk  23:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add: The article only mentions German "aces" while the books I accessed via Google mentions US, Japanese and other nationals. That's (partly) what I meant by saying the article needs to be "tightened up" — Iadmc♫talk  23:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add: Though the article was started in the user space of a highly respected admin (MSGJ (talk · contribs)) with only a stub template, the bulk of the work was done by an IP (76.66.196.218 (talk · contribs)) over two days in 2009—being moved by Martin half way through to main space. No idea if this is significant in any way, just seems odd — Iadmc♫talk  03:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at other comments, I see that the concept is well attested. The article just needs to be updated to include all nationalities and explain the concept better, and also needs to be better sourced. — Iadmc♫talk  02:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without seeing the sources cited, how can you suggest the claims are OR? Google Books gives me:
"A Knight's Cross was awarded to Kommandants who had sunk approximately 100,000 tons." (Teddy Suhren, Ace of Aces: Memoirs of a U-Boat Rebel, orig. pub. by Koehlers Verlagsgesellschaft)
"Traditionally, a submarine captain was given the Knight's Cross after he had sunk 100,000 tons of enemy shipping, the Oak Leaves after 200,000 tons. This standard was often relaxed,and there were exceptions." (Jordan Vause, U-Boat Ace: The Story of Wolfgang Luth, Naval Institute Press)
"The Germans had a fixed scale of awards for successful raiding operations. Ace U-boat commanders who sank over 100,000 tons of Allied ships, got the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross from Hitler. . . We had submarine aces in our own [US] Navy [that] got the Congressional Medal of Honor." (Daniel Vincent Gallery, Twenty Million Tons Under the Sea, Naval Institute Press)
The idea may be a bit hokey, but the term is common and after some cursory searches there is no grounds to delete. The Germans, at least, had a system for identifying aces. Srnec (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: The first two quotes only show that the Germans had a system for deciding when to give out medals. They don't mention "aces" except in the titles of the books, therefore there is not necessarily a connection between getting a medal and being hailed an ace. The third quote seems to suggest they were already hailed as aces before they got a medal: "Ace U-boat commanders who sank... got the Knight's Cross..." Be careful of creating your own interpretation from the sources. Also, the second half of the third quote talks about US aces receiving medals (again notice the order) and they aren't even mentioned in the article — Iadmc♫talk  03:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following are from Clay Blair, Hitler's U-Boat War: The Hunters, 1939–1942. He clearly has a precise definition he is using, because throughout he refers to specific numbers of aces ("...all eight 'aces' who still commanded U-boats..." on p. 233). Sometimes he puts ace in quotes, sometimes not.
"Berlin propagandists gleefully pronounced [Kretschmer] the new king of the U-boat aces" (p. 214)
"British propagandists hastend to boast of capturing a U-boat 'ace' (or Ritterkreuz holder)." (p. 205)
"Schepke's return to Germany ... left only one of the eighteen 'aces' (or Ritterkreuz holders) in the Atlantic." (p. 224)
I take quote #1 to indicate that German propaganda made use of the "ace" concept. There is extensive mention of U-boat aces in Michael L. Hadley, Count Not the Dead: The Popular Image of the German Submarine. In short, this is a valid topic, even if it is not covered well right now. The lack of a precise definition does not invalidate it. It is not restricted, apparently, either to Germany or to World War II. Srnec (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I have tracked down all but one of the sources cited in the article and updated the reflist accordingly. Perhaps you could expand the article using these and your sources? That way we may have a better idea of what this article is actually trying to convey. You seem to know what you're talking about which why I ask you. I just stumbled in here and have no idea about this topic. Don't feel obliged, though. Thanks — Iadmc♫talk  04:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Srnec: I've consulted Hadley's index prior to nominating this article to deletion, and I did not see "Ace, U-boat" or "U-boat ace" included. Could you point me to the pages where the concept is discussed? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have institutional access to an online edition. I get over 30 hits for "ace" and "aces". I have not found a discussion of the term, but its casual use throughout such a work tells me I need to see better grounds to delete. For example, "the grand three aces (Prien, Schepke, and Kretschmer) whose exploits had exhilarated Germany in the opening months of the war" on p. 134 suggests that he is not employing the term willy-nilly. You will find "aces" mentioned in the index under "media" and "novelists". Srnec (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (In response to Iadmc's note above.) I facilitated the creation of this article after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects/2009-04#Category request: Category: submarine aces. I had some of the same concerns as expressed on this page but was ultimately satisfied by the explanation given. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination tells us that the concept doesn't exist. It then contradicts itself by saying that there are many sources which use it. And it's easy to confirm this, e.g. "The Royal Navy's top submarine ace of World War II was Lt. Comdr. Malcolm David Wanklyn, commanding the Upholder." The fact that there's no exact definition is unimportant. There's no exact definition of concepts like mountain or river but that doesn't stop us having articles about them. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The concept definitely exists. Looking at Google ngrams we can see that it appeared during the war, which means that it was not of German origin at all, and has been in use since. It appears to be used in many books by noted naval historians like Norman Polmar. I also note that the are no Germans in the first page of books, just Brits and Americans. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources support the concept. Agathoclea (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term exists, but there is nothing like a concept. In military contexts the term ace gained currency in the English speaking countries, particularly in the US during WW I, when it was used by propaganda to describe successfull fighter pilots. (See Linda R. Robertson: The Dream of Civilized Warfare: World War I Flying Aces and the American Imagination. University of Minneapolis Press, Minneapolis 2003, esp. pp. 87-113.) But Allied war propaganda should not be mistaken to suggest that there was something like a "concept" in Germany during WW I. During WW II German U-boat commanders received the Knight's Cross, when they had sunk a certain number of enemy ships, and they figured greatly in German propaganda, but they were not referred to as "U-Boot Asse". For his English speaking audience Clay Blair may refer to Otto Kretschmer as the "king of the U-boat aces". In Germany he was called "Tonnagekönig". The German title of Reinhard "Teddy" Suhren's memoir, which was also mentioned here as an example, is Nasses Eichenlaub (= Wet Oak Leaves). It is true that the terminology was picked up by some German authors of popular militaria literature and pulp (like Karl Alman, i.e. Franz Kurowski), but that was way after WW II.
Claims like In World War I, U-boat commanders upon sinking 100,000 tons became U-boat aces, confuse terminology and historical reality. What did it mean to become an "U-boat ace"? Was there a special status attached to it? The sinking of a certain amount of tons meant that the commander would receive medals and orders, but those were not "Ace"-medals. Apparently the terminlogy is freely used in publications like Sea Classics, which, according to the publisher himself, bring you the drama and adventure of [...] naval history like no other publications available. Those are not WP:RS. It would make sense to put together an article Ace (military), based upon secondary literature that discusses the use of the term "ace" in military contexts (scholarly literature on that subject does indeed exist). But it is WP:OR to conclude just from the liberal use of the term in certain literature, that there is also a concept. For that you would have to have RS which explictly analyze it as a concept. So far such RS have not been provided. Therefore WP:NAD applies.
References and sources of the article even do not support the claims they are supposed to, but appear to be the outcome of a google search for the words "submarine" and "ace" plus an indiscriminate collection of works on German U-boat warfare. The University of Michigan, for example, provided a copy for the digitalization of Terraine's book, but is not affiliated with this publication. Bodo Herzog does not speak of "Asse" whatsoever. And so forth. Thus there is no material here which could be used elsewhere.--Assayer (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Every single work I cited is an RS and not one is militaria. It does not matter if the concept is foreign to Germans. It doesn't even matter if it is only a term, so long as the term is notable enough. It's the same as flying ace, defined as "a military aviator credited with shooting down several enemy aircraft during aerial combat". Nothing needs be official to be notable. Nor does the concept need to be contemporary. Frankly, I was a bit surprised how widely the term is used by reliable sources. The concept is clearly "a submarine commander credited with sinking a large tonnage". The actual cited scholars have clear criteria in mind. Srnec (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to confuse term and concept. Any term has a meaning, but not any term entails a concept. The use of the term "ace" in military contexts has become subject of historiographical analysis. As Peter Fritzsche wrote about the "flying ace": "The ace in combat is an immediately recognizable image. In control of his fate, handling his airplane with great courage and skill but also with an envied recklessness, the aviator appeared to be a genuine war hero, comparable to cavalrymen in Napoleon's era or chivalrous knights in the Middle Ages. [...] To this day, myths opposing the individual, distinctive combat of the aces to the industrial mass war on the ground remain deeply embedded in Western folklore." (A Nation of Fliers: German Aviation and the Popular Imagination. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.) 1992, p. 64.) Thus WP:WORDISSUBJECT would apply to the Ace (military), but not to the "submarine ace", because the latter term has not been the subject of verifiable coverage. As you yourself found with Hadley's Count not the Dead, there is no discussion of the term. You put a definition into quotation marks: "a submarine commander credited with sinking a large tonnage" - but is there a source that explicitly states this conclusion? Otherwise it is WP:SYNTH. --Assayer (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hezlet discusses and analyses the concept in his British and Allied Submarine Operations in World War II. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hadley, p. 59: "Admiral S. S. Hall, commander of the Royal Navy's submarine forces for most of the Great War, highlighted the character of the German U-boat ace. The character of the commanding officer, he argued, was far more crucial in submarines than in surface ships; the submarine skipper himself was the very nerve centre of his vessel. 'Germany had some four hundred submarine captains during the war but over sixty percent of the damage they did was accomplished by but twenty two. The inference is obvious... Fortunately, not every nation can produce such men, and if they cannot we can safely let them have as many and as large submarines as they like'." Hall supplies the concept, Hadley the term. Srnec (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may quote from WP:WORDISSUBJECT: articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. No coverage of the social and historical significance of the term "submarine ace" has been provided, but merely definitions and use informations.
I will try to llustrate the difference once more: There is a stack of literature which traces the origins of the term "ace" and how it was applied to fighter pilots. Historians like Peter Fritzsche and Linda Roberston have provided analyses of the image of the "ace" and thereby of the social and historical significance of the term. I am speaking of chapters, not of mere sentences. That's the kind of RS that is needed here, not a listing where and by whom the term has been used.
Hezlet's assumption that the "submarine Ace" was a title coined by the Germans, contradicts what historiography has said about the use of the term "ace" in military contexts, and I might add, that the latter view can easily be supported by primary sources. Hezlet supports his statement with a reference to the Oxford English Dictionary, which, as he has to admit, does not mention German U-boat Captains. Which is not really surprising, because it has been acknowledged by historians, e.g. by Peter Fritzsche cited above (p. 74), that the term originated with the French and was not used in Germany until after the war. According to the latest ABC-CLIO encyclopedia Germany at War (2014), by WW II the term was being used by all countries besides Germany and Japan. You may also take notice, that Hezlet refers to a dictionary, while there is an entry on the "Aces, German (1914–1945)" in an encyclopedic work that does not mention "submarine aces".
If Michael Hadley quotes a British admiral from 1930, that does not mean that he considers this characterization, which he also describes as "fulsome praise to the Germans", as anything like a "concept". He speaks of "concepts" here and there. But then he refers to terms like "Lebensraum", which has indeed social and historical significance.--Assayer (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Assayer: Who says this is an article about a word? WORDISSUBJECT does not apply, because this article is about submarine aces, not the term "submarine ace".
"That's the kind of RS that is needed here." That's setting the bar too high. Nobody would say that the concept of the submarine ace is equally important or influential or well-known as that of the flying ace. Why should it be as well studied? I think when you add all that has been presented just in this discussion, you have enough for an article without any OR or SYNTH. Add, e.g., Jordan Vause, U-Boat Ace: The Story of Wolfgang Luth (Naval Institute Press): "Weddigen was also the first U-boat ace. The U-boat ace would be as celebrated in his own circles as the air ace was in his—not as flashy perhaps, and certainly more hated, but celebrated nonetheless. As the war went on Weddigen was followed by a stream of other names. . . as dozens of new aces were created." Srnec (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The term may not have been precisely defined but it is used, as in this example about US submarine aces. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have been opposing the retention of a category, because inclusion involves POV issues. A list of the most successful commanders with their achievements (such as tonnage sunk) does not give rise to the same difficulty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom's comments / responses (putting this here in chrono order). I looked up the Hadley mentions offered by Srnec, and they are extremely passing, if at all. In Hadley, "media, and the popularization of aces" (p. 176) refers to:
  • Literature of WWII heightened the features that earlier cults of the hero had promoted. This was the era of the "grey wolves" and "steel sharks", when wolf packs, officially designated by such predatory names "robber baron" and "bludgeon", attacked the Allies' convoys. Widespread popularization of the U-boat aces, of their images and deeds propagated the cult of the personality which even today finds resonance in the popular market.
"Novelists, recycle old aces" (p. 101) does not mention "ace" at all, and has only this:
  • The press responded inventively [to the setbacks of 1943] by recycling the old heroic names and by publishing outdated or massaged statistics.
Separately, I take the quotes used by Blair to mean that he uses the term pejoratively, i.e. this concept only existed in propaganda. I also note that Hezlet uses "Ace" in quotes here: "Wanklyn stands out with the highest tonnage, two U-boats sunk, a cruiser damaged and a destroyer sunk, as incomparably the leading British submarine 'Ace' of the war."
  • Redirect proposal: I still don't think we have enough sources that address the topic "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". With that in mind, I propose that the article be redirected to Ace (military), which I just started. This will preserve the incoming links, and content specific to Submarine aces can be added if / when sources are located. Feedback? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a section or {{anchored}} term within Ace (military). I am particularly drawn by Assayer's rationale and wonderfully strong rebuttals.--John Cline (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That article does not yet have a source to back up its claim of the general definition of "ace". Srnec (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Edwyn A. Gray in The U-Boat War, 1914–1918 (London: Leo Cooper, 1994) has an appendix on p. 268 titled "German Submarine Aces". It is a list of World War I German aces. See here. This article could at the least be converted into a list of those regarded as aces by RS. As has already been shown, this would appear to be a well-defined list at least for Germany, since several authors refer to precise numbers of aces. We already have List of most successful U-boat commanders. —Srnec (talk) 01:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the term submarine ace and its historical significance are not well studied, why should it be featured in a stand-alone article? That speaks against its notability.
So far this discussion was almost exclusively devoted to the question: Is the term submarine ace a common one and is there an "ace" concept? The idea that the article should instead be a list of submarine commanders has only just been brought up. In that case WP:POVNAMING does apply. By any means it should have become clear by now, that "ace" is not a neutral term, but passes a (positive) judgment. At the same time submarine ace is not common usage. During November and December 2016, e.g., the page has been viewed about 9 times a day and that's although Wikipedia also features Subsea ace and Undersea ace redirecting to submarine ace and Ace of the Deep redirecting to the aforementioned List of most successful U-boat commanders. There is also List of aces of aces#Submarine aces. That seems to be a case of WP:REDUNDANT already, so I don't see the need to create yet another list of German U-Boat commanders. In sum, the article submarine ace should become a redirect, either to the Ace (military) or to one of those lists.--Assayer (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kierzek: What could be merged though? I consider this statement to be OR:
  • U-boat commanders upon sinking 100,000 tons and becoming U-boat aces, were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (RK), under the points system instituted by Adolf Hitler.
It seems that they were awarded the KC first, and then elevated to the status of national heroes through the press, thus becoming "aces" in the popular culture and propaganda machinery. At least that's my understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that aces in the context of submarine commanders is simply a popular culture term; they were recognized for obtaining a military goal and awarded a medal for same; now were they made national heroes in the press, ofcourse they were, it was a time of war; but that is not the only defining point to focus on I believe. As long as it is RS cited, as well. The term has a longer tradition in relation to pilots as we all know and frankly when it has been used for tank commanders, it does not carry the same validity. Kierzek (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2017 Chicago torture incident. - I've also created the Facebook redirect too (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook Four[edit]

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

I am not convinced that there is sufficient evidence that "the facebook four" is a notable subject. There is no article about the incident they were involved in, so it seems anomalous that they should have a dedicated article. OK, strike the last part of that, as 2017 Chicago torture incident does exist, but I still do not see evidence that the "four" are notable independently of the incident itself. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the other article. It also was not linked into the main Facebook page either.(which you will see, I made a very small edit) Perhaps if the 2017 Chicago torture incident article contained the names of the perpetrators, it would have been easier to find. As to how to proceed, a redirect is probably the best way to go. Progressingamerica (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect: "2017 Chicago torture incident" is difficult for readers to find if they wish to read about this crime. With more redirects, it will be easier to find the article. I do not think this is WP:POINTY content, particularly as it does not name the perpetrators. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect with option ot merge any useful material to 2017 Chicago torture incident, which is inded a terrible search term (I had toruble finding article after reading about case and logging in to check if it had an article yet.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I also recommend a redirect "Facebook torture incident, 2017." This article is incredibly difficult to find. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point. Once some of the pending issues are resolved, a rename of the article may be in order.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect plausible search term and nothing new here that needs merging. AIRcorn (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. A search term at best. I have a feeling this term will not stick to this incident in the future.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect there is no information in the Facebook Four that isn't already in the other article. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect plausible search term --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Although I question why the other article is not at AfD, as the entire incident reeks of WP:SENSATION. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It has been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Chicago torture incident. AIRcorn (talk) 23:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SNOW close.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or just plain Delete as WP:CSD#A10: Duplicate topic to 2017 Chicago torture incident. We don't need a WP:NEOLOGISM launched for it. I don't see "Facebook Four" except on the CBS Chicago and its duplicate copies. If you do a Google search, "the Facebook Four" was used for different groups of people over the last 10 years in different articles. --Closeapple (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyjamesduff killings[edit]

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

Non notable killings; minor incident where one killed family, no one else. It is already mentioned on the main Ballyjamesduff article, I think this is enough. It doesn't justify its own article. Nördic Nightfury 21:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 21:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 21:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
K̶e̶e̶p̶ I̶f̶ ̶I̶ ̶r̶e̶m̶e̶m̶b̶e̶r̶ ̶c̶o̶r̶r̶e̶c̶t̶l̶y̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶r̶e̶c̶e̶i̶v̶e̶d̶ ̶s̶i̶g̶n̶i̶f̶i̶c̶a̶n̶t̶ ̶m̶e̶d̶i̶a̶ ̶a̶t̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶I̶r̶e̶l̶a̶n̶d̶ Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Apollo The Logician:: It has been mentioned on the main article for the place this happened, suitable sources will need to be added though. I think that is enough. Nördic Nightfury 22:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per edit by OE Apollo The Logician (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable killing, Not even worth redirecting either. –Davey2010Talk 01:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a terrible, terrible thing, but most family killings are not notable, and I see no indication that this one is. Search did not turn up ongoing coverage. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if someone can source notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and other comments. While covering a terrible event, in it's current form the article doesn't meet project scope per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT (and in particular long term relevance per WP:EFFECT). Guliolopez (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:NOTPROMO. North America1000 23:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Golf and Aqua Resort[edit]

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

This article is blatantly promotional and meets the definition of WP:SPAM. Rogermx (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: such a blatant ad, with no sources.JerrySa1 (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STEMployable[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability - see WP:ORG. Lack of information on them on the web - only a Twitter and Youtube by the looks of it. [4] covers the company - but is only a copy from the trademark register. A domain launching in 2017 seems to be WP:TOOSOON TheMagikCow (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON as the website is not even active yet Seasider91 (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable service mark for a planned future enterprise (also non-notable). The eight references in the article relate to STEM education and employment, not to article subject. WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 21:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete per CSD G3. This looks as JerrySal stated, like a hoax by a student about their teacher. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Azerbaijanis[edit]

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

Reposting originally malformed AfD submission. TimothyJosephWood 20:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reference. I am from Azerbaijan but I do not see need for special article about African diaspora in Azerbaijan.--Abutalub (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While articles about ethnic groups in Azerbaijan may be appropriate, the current and past content of this article is not.Smmurphy(Talk) 21:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Only example given was some english teacher in Baku, and the article seems to have been made by a student...JerrySa1 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired Leadership Award[edit]

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

This award is of questionable notability itself and appears to have been created by SPAs to prop up corporate bios on Wikipedia. We've had this discussion with other awards before (New Talent Awards, Bharat Gaurav Award, Golden Book of World Records, etc.) and have nearly come to consensus that awards need extraordinary media coverage to be considered notable. Regardless, the article presents zero independent references. Brianhe (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest airlines in India[edit]

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

There is no explanation what is considered a "large" airline. this seem like an arbitrary list and an unnecessary list Domdeparis (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm still editing the article and I still need time. But I truly believe that this article does indeed has a great importance because, in India right now, there is a thriving airline indstry, and this website clearly helps users find information about the airlines and their progress. Also, the "large' is referring to how many passengers (in millions ) each of the airlines had carried.(talk) 09:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm still editing the article and I still need time. But I truly believe that this article does indeed has a great importance because, in India right now, there is a thriving airline indstry, and this website clearly helps users find information about the airlines and their progress. Also, the "large' is referring to how many passengers (in millions ) each of the airlines had carried.(talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This content is quite vital and there is no reason for removal as it is most likely that many people would like to view this webpage inorder to understand the airline industry in India. Also I'm still editing the article and I still need time. But I truly believe that this article does indeed has a great importance because, in India right now, there is a thriving airline indstry, and this website clearly helps users find information about the airlines and their progress. Also, the "large' is referring to how many passengers (in millions ) each of the airlines had carried.(talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Hi if the aim is to help people understand the airline industry in India might it not be better to refer to the article Aviation in India. If the aim is to rank the airlines by number of passengers it would be better to add this information to the List of airlines of India and thereby avoiding the arbitrary notion of "largest" as this page is supposed to include all the airlines. The space on the page is sufficient to include almost all of the information that you have provided without using a scrolling table. Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But this is statistics of how the airlines havr been doing, not their background information. (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ALSO I HAVE THOUGHT OF ADDING MORE INFORMATION OF THE AIRLINES IN INDIA BASED ON
                         - DESTINATIONS
                         - KILOMETERS FLOWN
                         - FLEET SIZE
                         - AND POSSIBLY EVEN REVENUE

please do not delete this website as there is nothing innapropriate, irrevelevent, and all the sources where I had receved this data have been cited(sourced). (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pigpen cipher. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010Talk 23:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elian Script[edit]

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

Nothing to actually support this is independently notable and with substance, searches easily found nothing at all aside from a few listings, so there's nothing for a better article accepted in our standards. Article has existed for months now without actual improvements. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to pigpen cipher. Available sources are all heavily weighted towards self-promotion; no independent in-depth coverage seems to exist.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge into Pigpen cipher. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 17:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added external sources from magazines, radio, and YouTube (not done by C.C. Elian _ please see edits); what is missing are illustrations which I should be able to find soon and add.Griffinxyz (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also took away the reference to the PigPen cipher as the source because that isn't true. The artist C.C. Elian has clarified this multiple times: [1]Griffinxyz (talk) 12:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://reddit.unlockproject.co/r/elianscript/comments/1z9h0a/question_about_origins_and_choices/
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If the topic becomes notable later, it can be restored. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen Bramall[edit]

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

PROD removed by IP, no reason given. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL - it's a young footballer who received a dirge of identical WP:ROUTINE articles about his big-money transfer. Nothing which demonstrates notability. GiantSnowman 17:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rational and per WP:CBALL, simply too soon. The article can always be recreated or restarted if/when the subject achieves WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's just signed for Arsenal. I rather think the demand for deletion might be premature. CulturalSnow (talk) 22:53, 11 January 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) 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 23:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gasner Derose[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. David Biddulph (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:N. Lack of significant coverage through reliable sources.AllanVolt (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Thompson Iyamu[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. The two books mentioned are issued by a self-publishing company named "Bookbaby". Promotional. The Banner talk 16:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Page reads like a puff piece and needs to be trimmed but subject is covered in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO, in particular the need to establish notability by reliable and independent sources. Of the 5 sources referenced:
and
  • it cannot be determined whether content publshed by the sources has or has not been paid for by the subject (indicating potential conflict of interest) (see %5B1%5D and %5B3%5D).
  • At least one source (The Crazy Mind) does not provide any information to establish its reliability. A quick read of the website's source code provides indication that it's a self-published blog hosted on Blogger, and a WHOIS query does not give any indication to the contrary.
  • One source (Essex Magazine) describes itself as a tabloid magazine, with no way to determine its editorial independence and reliability (per WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES, see also WP:PUS#News media).
  • Finally, the remaining source, also casts doubts as to its reliability. The source was written by a "Mwaura Samora" (a quick Google search of whom provided no indication of being a reputable journalist, nor could his claim to winning the 2012 UN Correspondents Association (UNCA) Award be verified). The content was published on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform, which does not seem to be subject to editorial oversight (given the disclaimer which reads: "This post is hosted on the Huffington Post’s Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site.").
My conclusion is therefore that none of these sources, either alone or combined, can establish notability. A quick Google search does not provide any other independent, reliable sources, which could establish notability either. --talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 20:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Excellent work in vetting the sources, talk2Chun. I wish more editors would assess the validity of sources to the extent you've shown here. Too many will see "Huffington Post" and automatically assume it is significant, or click on a link and if it looks important will mistake it for being reliable and/or independent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - thank you for that investogation, talk2Chun. The sources are not enough to show notability. Looking at the article history, it's also apparent that it was reviewed and rejected in AfC and shortly thereafter moved to articlespace by a brand-new editor (who, incidentally, has also moved two other drafts by the user who created this article to mainspace). The content is the same as in the rejected version, there's just a couple of additional sources, and as conclusively shown above, the sources are not sufficient. --bonadea contributions talk 13:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per User:Talk2chun.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperloop at Virginia Tech[edit]

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

As the article currently stands, there is no claim of notability and it serves more as an on-campus club listing rather than any encyclopedic article. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 via multiple, independent sources. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When and If (schooner)[edit]

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

No claim of importance or Wp:notability, Cannot find any sources. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 15:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Being Patton's yacht is a claim of notability and I found sources within seconds, like an entire chapters in the books In the Spirit of Tradition: Old and New Classic Yachts and The Book of Wooden Boats, Volume 1.[5][6] More coverage in a Patton biography. [7] I should note that nominating an article of a possibly notable topic only 6 minutes of article creation [8]is not helpful and is a case of WP:BITE. --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – @Junior5a: https://www.stockislandmarina.com/blog/the-when-and-if-schooner/; http://www.oldsaltblog.com/2010/10/pattons-schooner-when-and-if-to-be-sold/; http://www.sandemanyachtcompany.co.uk/details/417/63-ft-John-Alden-Schooner-1939/yacht-for-sale/. I recently created an AfD on another one of @Capt.J.W.King:'s articles but I withdraw it after seeing the light. His contributions, though unsourced, are significant enough for inclusion. Laurdecl talk 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough said. --doncram 06:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 09:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been watching this since it was created, and I was skeptical at first, but per the current article and the sources above I'm personally satisfied. I would only add that since there is no current article for When and If, no disambiguation is necessary and the article should be moved over the redirect. TimothyJosephWood 11:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold a proper wp:RM about the naming, please, and I'll watch but I'd appreciate being notified, too. The naming is appropriate as is, in my view, but I have seen a move or two recently done as you seem to prefer. It should be discussed but is not part of the AFD. --doncram 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it really needs an RM to simply follow the letter of WP:DAB. But I supposed if you want to take issue with it, then it does. TimothyJosephWood 13:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in order to bolster my flagging AfD score, since this is a no-brainer. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A number of good sources have been added since start of AfD, I think. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable yacht.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The consensus above surprises me: I would not have thought that a yacht inherited notability from having belonged to a general. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron: Erwin Schrödinger is notable, and so is his cat, but that's because the former popularized the latter, which was written about in its own right. TimothyJosephWood 18:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the relevance of that comment. The cat was part of a scientific argument. It struck me that this was a classic case of notability not being inherited. Paton was certainly notable, but that does not mean that his yacht was, but as there was a clear consensus to keep, I refrained from voting delete ( as I might have done). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If people write about the thing-in-itself because of the (non-WP) notability of the thing it is related to, then the notability (in the WP sense) is imparted, if not inherited, because the ability to meet GNG is imparted. If you're worried about AfD stats, then stats be damned. If you think it should be deleted, then vote a principled delete. I've often seen a principled and well reasoned if minority delete turn a keep into a non-consensus. Stats, like hats, are not what we're here for. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was only questioning notability, not verifiability; and I am clearly in a minority. I am intentionally not opposing keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, my keep !vote was because there is sufficient coverage to this topic and the connection to Patton just adds to and is a claim of notability, something that the nom claimed was nonexistent. --Oakshade (talk) 20:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Benson (singer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BAND; sources are mostly self-published. Article creator has the same name as the artist's own production company, so obvious WP:COI. Drm310 (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promotional content which fails WP:GNG. Google News brings up nothing about the subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are all unreliable. A google search of the subject doesn't show notability whatsoever.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 notions herein about the potential for merging, no prejudice against userfication if anyone is interested in accessing the content to perform such merge. North America1000 23:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Designing for virtual reality[edit]

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

Found this on PROD prowl, was nominated as under-referenced essay, but seems potentially notable and salvageable, hence nominating here for discussion. Samsara 14:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an essay and a how-to guide, neither of which is permitted. I don't see how anything can be salvaged from this and the title of the article itself is in the style of a how-to. If there is any useful information in here, it can be moved over to virtual reality. freshacconci talk to me 15:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:NOTMANUAL. There is a lot of information here though, so if any of it is of any relevance to virtual reality hopefully somebody with the knowledge could transfer some of it.
  • Delete - Relevant information should be merged to virtual reality. The content/page, as it currently reads, is unencyclopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This looks like a set of notes for the eventual creation of an article. Maybe the original author wants them back in their userspace? I don't think anyone else can salvage much from it. —Ruud 19:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, the original author, Jenserdetchnaia, has not visibly returned since the day the article was created, in spite of being notified of the PROD and AfD. Userfying would have the benefit of giving time to carry out merges as suggested above. Samsara 01:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above and WP:TOOSOON. The field is not so developed that we need more such articles for the general reader. Bearian (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2018 College Football Playoff National Championship[edit]

2018 College Football Playoff National Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Structure article waiting for American football results, that is better waiting in userdraft somewhere. Final is played in Jan 8th, 2018. Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:BALL. scope_creep (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete this Article It needs to Stay.2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This Article Needs to stay it need's to be part of it. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 13:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think having it sitting there, for an event that is so far in the future, isn't something Wikipedia needs. Move it to a draft location with your userspace, and bring it out in a years time when the event starts. scope_creep (talk) 13:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Does Move It to a draft location mean. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It Does not need to move to a draft space it is fine as it is. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This Afd has to stay open for 7 days. So it's not being deleted yet, if at all. This is only my suggestion. Userspace is the space setup under account, which is here: User talk:2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2. You don't need to move it yet, or even at all. The Afd consensus might decide that it doesn't need removed. Apart from that, it was an excellent article. scope_creep (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much I hope this article stays and god willing that it will because Monday Is MLK Day and I hope this article stays. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is a excellent article is right and I hope this article stays Because I Put in a reference and it should stay. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Save This Article it needs to stay. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please save this article from Being Deleted. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not violating WP:CRYSTAL to say that the 2018 College Football National Championship will be held at the Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta on January 8, 2018. It's a scheduled event. Per WP:CRYSTAL, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." There's no reason to think we won't still have college football in a year. That said, we definitely don't need the "Starting lineup" section when we won't know who's appearing in this game for another 51 weeks. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Hope This article is not deleted I hope you save it. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Muboshgu. WP:BALL actually supports the existence of this article. ansh666 19:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a lot is known about the event now and even though the event itself is almost a year off, there is more than enough third party coverage to surpass the general notability guideline. We went through this a few years back and consensus was to keep articles about this championship one year in advance to help editors add new information as it comes available.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INFO This may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 College Football Championship Game--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Incubate. I can't really determine, with my limited knowledge of American football, whether the notability of this event is supported by the (in my opinion limited) existing in-depth coverage. It feels like it's too early for an Article (in the spirit of WP:TOOSOON), and I'm not sure the existing reliable sources provide enough coverage to suggest notability at this time (per WP:BALL). I don't believe it needs to be deleted, however. I'm sure it's fine to move it to User of Draft space, until such time as more sources become available to support notability.--talk2Chun(talk) (contributions) 20:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I Hope we don't have to wait until Spring till the bowl schedule comes out by then please save this article. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is well out of date Ejgreen77. The precedent is from August, September last year, they get parked until close to the event. That why I nominated it. It's not the point that people talk about in a manner of a future event that makes for good reference. Everybody does that. It is human nature to discuss the next election, the next prime minister, the next world series. The point is, there is no real encyclopedic content within this article, the actuality that people come to look for. All it is, is structure, a framework. scope_creep (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The precedent is from August, September last year." Diffs for this, please? Keep in mind that we have articles for the World Cup as far away as 2026, and the Olympics as far away as 2028. This event is less than a calendar year away. Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd really like to have a reference for this particular "precedent" as well. I check college football related AFDs almost daily, I have no recollection of such a discussion. I've been wrong before, please provide a link.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please Don't Delete This Please Keep it. 2600:8803:7A00:19:7113:2C0E:EF33:37A2 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Muboshgu, Paul McDonald, and WP:CRYSTAL, our precedent is to permit an article for the next upcoming in a series of recurring events. So, after Clemson's win last night in the 2017 game, this article for 2018 is now ripe. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What Do you Mean Category is ripe But I Don't want this Category to go and be deleted. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Save this Article please don't redrecit or delete it save it. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete this article or redirect I hope this article is here by Tuesday. 2600:8803:7A00:19:87C:38CC:BD10:84CB (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on page histories of other championship games (which were each expanded into articles around the same time this was). —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any benefit in deleting this article, nor do I see a policy-based reason for doing so. Lepricavark (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America1000 22:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Owens[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines as outlined under the WP:MUSIC criteria. Two independent releases, one album and EP, majority of sources highlight a degree of WP:OR. Karst (talk) 10:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator as per Walter's point on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources. Karst (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I know this one satisfies GNG, for her music being covered by CCM Magazine, New Release Today, and 365 Days of Inspiring Media.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 03:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notability as a Christian music artist is established by multiple reviews in independent reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep WP:BARE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Ajay Verma[edit]

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

This is a no-brainer speedy deletion candidate as a self-promotional resume by a non-notable individual, but as the author repeatedly removes the speedy tag, I'm bringing it to AfD. DAJF (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt as per nomination. Karst (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. No obvious reason to salt at this point, since it doesn't appear that the page has ever been recreated prior (other than the cross namespace move). TimothyJosephWood 13:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cogent Research[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ORG. No in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Was going to redirect to parent company but no page available. CNMall41 (talk) 10:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Cain[edit]

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

Promotional article based primarily on self-published sources. There are several "sources" provided, but most are only to self-published stuff. The Cal State source doesn't even mention the article subject, let alone cover him in depth, and I see no indication that the "Quarterback Ranch" source is particularly reliable, it appears rather to be promotional/sales material. A search doesn't turn up any better references, just self-published stuff and Amazon links. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Enough is enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, heavily promotional, no actual notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pure promotionalism, no evidence of notability. Salting sounds like a good idea. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable individual with no coverage in mainstream publications. Article created by a new user with no other edit history. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabian snowstorm 2016[edit]

Saudi Arabian snowstorm 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a single event article, and in my opinion at best be merged with Climate of Saudi Arabia. I had PROD it earlier which was declined. ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not sure whether I'm supposed to be here, given that I've edited it, but here goes. This article has potential. I've just expanded it some, and it could probably be expanded even further. I'm going to stop now, as I'm not much good at major edits. As Joe Roe said above, this is interesting (and unusual) enough that it's notable and deserves its own article. Tamwin (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above sources show WP:GNG is passed. Also, move to 2016 Saudi Arabian snowstorm per naming conventions evident at Category:2016 meteorology. "Pepper" @ 05:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and broaden focus. I've been expanding the article using sources helpfully provided by Joe Roe above and by JamesG5 on the article talk page, and have made a search myself for others, and I notice two things: one, there's a preponderance of tabloids, with several accounts relying on The Sun, which is a really unreliable source, or drawing heavily on Twitter and Facebook; and two, several articles eventually mention previous snowfalls in Saudi Arabia—I already have 2013, 2015, and January 2016 in our article—and the Telegraph reference is a photo essay talking depicting snow throughout the Middle East, published in late December. So it's unusual but far from unique, and the article should probably become one on snow in the Middle East. There are presumably climate studies out there that talk generally about the frequency and whether it's increasing. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and, as suggested, perhaps expand into something like Snow in Florida. I can see this odd article making it to the main page on 1 April 2017. Did you know that an Islamic cleric issued a fatwa against the building of snow men in Saudi Arabia? Bearian (talk) 16:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage clearly allows the article to pass WP:GEOSCOPE. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 16:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEVA Logistics[edit]

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

Company fails WP:ORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. I find brief mentions, routine announcements, and industry publications but nothing in-depth that can establish notability. CNMall41 (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nominator. DonFB (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clear advertising in which only published and republished advertising by the company has been cited, simply because other Wikis are still hosting this is never a convincing sign because we're the highly advanced one of them all especially given how we won't tolerate any advertising at any costs so that actually sets us as an example; anything that is as business-focused as this one is, is not acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I PRODded the thing in July 2015[18] as WP:CORP fail. It hasn't improved since then. Brianhe (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 – involvement in the civil war is notable. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl talk 20:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Street Shipyard[edit]

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

No claim of importance or notability. WP:ITEXISTS Laurdecl talk 08:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This shipyard was established in 1843 and so is older than the state of Florida, where it is located. It was the scene of a battle during the civil war, as Confederate blockade runners were based there. See Egmont Key: A History for an example of a detailed source. Note that the article is newly created by a new editor who is being bitten rather than assisted. For shame. Andrew D. (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson: Are you "shaming" me? This editor has created three blatant copyvios which have since been deleted, edit warred on Shipyard, marked his edits as minor to avoid them being reverted, removed CSD tags on his own articles and has not sourced a single one of his additions to articles, despite being warned repeatedly on his talk page. I haven't been involved in anything other than these AfDs so please don't make false accusations about me biting people. While some of these user's edits may appear constructive we don't know whether or not it is true at all without a source. Laurdecl talk 15:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the steps expected before nominating at AFD. In particular, "Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability ... If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andrew Davidson: I didn't nominate this for lack of sources, I nominated it because the article didn't have any credible claim of significance, it merely stated that an old shipyard exists. My grandma's teacup is also old and also exists, should I make an article? Laurdecl talk 15:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article does have a credible claim to significance - per the source that Andrew Davidson identified. I feel that WP:ARTN should be pointed out here. The significance claim is addressed by sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Factom[edit]

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

Non-notable software Orange Mike | Talk 06:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Gates Foundation believes Factom to be notable,[1] as well as the Economist,[2] and DHS.[3] At this point, the article is under development by the community that supports the software project. We will flush out the nature of the protocol, as well as the various companies using the protocol beyond Factom Inc., which has done almost all the software development on the protocol at this point. The Factom project has joined Hyperledger,[4] and the development will be much more distributed across the community going forward. Part of moving the protocol out of Factom Inc. and more into the community is allowing the community to write this article. Paulsnx2 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those references have in-depth coverage of Factom. Nothing in those references says anything about the publisher believing that Factom is notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I stated above, the article is under development. I'm not sure how you can say a Gates Foundation announcement of a roughly half a million dollar grant isn't some indication of confidence in Factom. None the less, I just grabbed a few references to hold our position as others develop the article. We have a great deal of technical detail on Factom to summarize, such as the Factom White Paper[5] and our Consensus Algorithm[6] The dvelopment on this open source project ranks pretty high in the cryptocurrency space (#30 by one automated list).[7] I'm just asking that we have time to address concerns, add detail, and flush the article out. Paulsnx2 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another reference placing Factom with other notable projects[8] Paulsnx2 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2016/11/OPP1159449
  2. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21677228-technology-behind-bitcoin-lets-people-who-do-not-know-or-trust-each-other-build-dependable
  3. ^ https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2016/06/17/st-awards-199k-austin-based-factom-inc-iot-systems-security
  4. ^ https://www.hyperledger.org/announcements/2016/12/28/hyperledger-wraps-up-2016-by-welcoming-eight-new-members
  5. ^ https://github.com/FactomProject/FactomDocs/blob/master/whitepaper.md
  6. ^ https://github.com/FactomProject/FactomDocs/blob/master/FactomLedgerbyConsensus.pdf
  7. ^ http://richtopia.com/top-lists/top-100-blockchain
  8. ^ http://www.econotimes.com/Annual-revenue-for-enterprise-applications-of-blockchain-to-hit-199B-by-2025--Report-454297
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources (WP:GNG). Paulsnx2's arguments do not support notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your conclusion JJMC89 that sources for this project are not reliable requires us to believe the Economist, the Gates Foundation, Hyperledger, dhs, github, and econtimes (as Starters) are not reliable sources. A simple google shows references to our project in the Wall Street Journal,[1] International Business Times,[2] RFID Journal,[3] and more are not credible. And you are saying my arguments have no merit (i.e. I asked to give us some time to organize and improve the page). Really? So no page is allowed to fill in details and correct issues? That idea has no merit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulsnx2 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Github material is self-published, so it is not independent. The issue issue is depth of coverage. Mentions and press-release (actual or redressed; e.g. the International Business Times piece you linked) are not sufficient. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • DHS, the Gates Foundation, and Hyperledger releases and statements are not self published, and are independent. There is depth of coverage that we have not covered yet. And sources redressing releases from DHS, Gates, Hyperledger, and other independent organizations isn't the same as redressing our press releases. Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the value of the sources your *only* issue? So my request for some time to develop the article is not relevant? Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can find discussion within Wikipedia that a source code control site like Github is considered self-published. Github is taken as a massive indication of credibility of software projects in the software industry. But perhaps Wikipedia is an exception, so I looked for some such disucssion. I looked here [4] Do you have an actual reference to source code control as self-publishing? Paulsnx2 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2017/01/10/homeland-security-looks-to-blockchain-to-track-people-goods-across-borders/
  2. ^ http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/factom-releases-next-version-its-blockchain-factom-federation-network-1597411
  3. ^ http://www.rfidjournal.com/articles/view?15392
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29
  • Keep, Factom is a software company and not a product. It develops software products for the data management and security. I have edited the page to appear more encyclopedic, the way it should be and as well as added reliable references from Reuters, WSJ, NASDAQ, TechCrunch and bizjournals. These references clearly seems to be enough for company to pass (WP:GNG.Kavdiamanju (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All of those notoriously, largely and conitually republished the company's own PR at their will and call, so how is that actual "reliable sourcing"? Our policies certainly never accepted republished PR. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming my delete above. The sources in the article are press releases (actual or redressed), WP:ROUTINE, and/or mere mentions (e.g. TechCrunch). Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing here is both genuine substance and convincingly independent and it's because this is all for a company whose sole sources of attention are PR, a clear sign nothing else exists. SwisterTwister talk 21:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, eligible as G11, unambiguous advertising. Paul Snow, have you declared your role at Factom as required by our conflict-of-interest guideline or indeed perhaps wmf:Terms of Use? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • At this point, I have, and nothing remains of what I my contributions to the article. I believe the article should be about the protocol, not the company, as is the case for other cryptocurrencies and protocols, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. The contributions I made (discussion of the protocol) have been deleted at this point. Paulsnx2 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - supported with nothing but a series of announcements. Flat Out (talk) 01:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom.Not notable software company. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Matos[edit]

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

May be a member in more than one band but fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 02:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune drastically. Satisfies WP:MUSIC on multiple levels. Member of multiple independently notable bands. Solo work charted in Japan. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, obviously notable. Worldwide famous and accomplished metal vocalist, has been the vocalist of at least four notable acts (plus guest performances) and is currently enjoying some success in a solo career. Charts, relevant tours and coverage on major sources are other reasons to presume his notability. Article needs some major improvements, though. Will try to work on it in the future. Victão Lopes Fala! 16:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdean Belgian[edit]

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

While I don't wish to imply there are no Cape Verdeans in Belgium - this expat website has two and this article mentions them existing in passing - a thorough search in French, Dutch, English and German yields no further information about them (except this article). The article itself currently contains two sentences, one a dictionary definition and the other a mention of a well-known Cape Verdean Belgian. (The article used to have a third sentence, but I removed it because it lacked a source.) I therefore believe this subject to be not notable enough.

(Please excuse me in case I made a mistake in the deletion procedure. This is the first time I'm nominating an article for deletion.) Amphicoelias (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom. There are twenty different Cape Verdean articles (see template) and some seem to have substantial content. This one does not and doesn't seem that it ever could (unless there is some change in migration from Cape Verde to Belgium). Fails on notability. MB 05:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteHold Leaning delete and couldn't find anything: But, I've put out a couple of ILL requests on some potentially promising articles. Please don't close until at least 12 Jan so that I can get the sources and check if they help notability. Once again: Multiple searches revealed nothing of substance which would be able to support GNG notability. I will scratch and edit this when I receive the sources. No RS coverage of note. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's been a decade for this article to be expanded, and nothing's been forthcoming! Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cohen (comedian)[edit]

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

Cohen is a minor comedian with no major roles. Beyond this the page only has one source, IMDb which is not considered reliable by Wikipedia so it totally fails the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep From the listed sources, the subject is not notable. The IMDb page does not establish notability. However, if it's true what is said at the above comment, which I have not verified, then the subject might pass notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orly Punzalan[edit]

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

unsourced non-notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a BLP without sources. Laurdecl talk 08:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article states that the subject is deceased. WP:BLP may not apply here. Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Naqib-ur-Rahman[edit]

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

Not sure the current sourcing is reliable. All seem to reference the same speech by this individual, and all could be called into question regarding their neutrality. Searches turned up zero other references, even using the alternative spellings of his name. Onel5969 TT me 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes you think that the sources reference the same speech? One is from 2013, and the two from about a month apart from 2016 are about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan respectively, completely separate topics. And which of those well-established national newspapers do you think would not be neutral with regard to this subject? As far as I am aware none of them is aligned with Sufism, the topic with which this subject is associated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  Here are alternate names:
Unscintillating (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems he has been the subject of news stories over at least a three year period and across different domains (in terms of subject of the story and country the story takes place), so I think that well satisfies GNG. Smmurphy(Talk) 03:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nothing satisfying our notability for this subject and the information cited gives nothing better. SwisterTwister talk 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Glasgow[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, written like an advertorially-toned résumé rather than an encyclopedia, of a county attorney. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL or WP:LAWYERS just because he exists, but the referencing here isn't strong enough to give him a WP:GNG pass instead -- it's based very heavily on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage of other things, with very little evidence of media coverage that's about him in any substantive way. In addition, there's a direct conflict of interest here, as the article was created by a user named "Lisamlas" and the primary source website that singlehandedly accounts for 25 per cent of the "sourcing" here lists a Lisa Morel Las as a senior staffer in the office. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; reliable source coverage which properly verifies that he passes a specific notability criterion is required for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I think that the biggest issue with the article is it focuses on the Drew Peterson case, and to a lesser extent the use of dogs in courtrooms to help calm children. You may be right about all the points about a potential conflict of interest, in which case that could be raised and addressed. As well as its tone and the sources that are used. I think a lot of people coming in fresh don't understand the importance of reliable secondary sources.
When I take a look though, at what articles come up for Glasgow, there are a lot of articles that pop up, without Peterson and without dog that seem to make WP:GNG -- when you also consider the national coverage received during the Drew Peterson case. I don't see a particular problem having this article - and think it could be built upon. If I am missing something, though, I am open to hearing about it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Campaign advertisement. One of his cases was notable, and coverage on it mentioned him. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 22:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. County level office with little in-depth coverage in independent sources. Much of the article is about the Peterson case, not directly about Glasgow. Much of the material not about that one case is sourced to the Joliet Patch, a small community specific news outlet. This is not significant coverage. MB 02:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

César Ferreira Cattaruzzi[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NFOOTY. I don't believe the Swiss Challenge League is a fully professional league, though I am not entirely certain. But the article was previously deleted before being reposted. It has been tagged for notability since 2011. I am taking this into AfD after recent attempts to delete via CSD G4 and PROD, by other editors. Safiel (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Tai[edit]

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

BLP article that has BLP-Prod removed twice by User:Adam9007 even though the guidelines state that sources must be reliable. The source are not reliable and are merely text. Fails WP:NACTOR, and subsequently fails WP:BIO. Not notable yet, although I suspect it's only a matter of time. scope_creep (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not BLP PROD eligible at the time of placement, but the point about the sources being mainly vanity and non-RS stands as a reason for deletion via AfD. Doesn't appear to have any noteworthy role in films, so he doesn't pass the guidelines yet. WP:TOOSOON. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I concur and the important part is also none of this amounts to substance including for independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Haworth[edit]

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

Lacks evidence of notability. Owen (talk) 23:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP, No sources listed other than an IMDB which cites one non-notable film and research gives no reliable source. JuliaCameron (talk) 00:16, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to She's a Boy I Knew. Filmmakers are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia WP:BLPs just because they exist, but the depth of reliable sourcing needed to get her in the door just isn't there. I searched both Google and ProQuest, and found only glancing namechecks of her existence rather than substantive coverage about her. There's actually a much stronger case for an article about She's a Boy I Knew itself (this article actually missed its biggest WP:NFILM slamdunk) than there is for a BLP of her as a person — and given that the film itself is an autobiographical documentary, an article about the film would already include a bit of biographical detail about her anyway without requiring two separate articles to coexist, and there's not much value in retaining the edit history of such a poorly sourced BLP. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person also did net solo coverage when Gwen chosen as grandmarshal of Vancouver's pride parade, as seen here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being named grand marshal of a parade isn't really a distinction that clears the notability bar in and of itself, and that article isn't a particularly strong GNG pass either — it represents her giving soundbite about other things, rather than an article that's actually covering her as a subject of the piece, and it's pretty WP:ROUTINE since Vancouver's local media would be pretty much expected to be running articles like that just before Vancouver's local Pride. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ambient music. I'm very sympathetic to the idea of including niche and minority musicians and other artists. However WP:MUS requires that subjects must have ".... been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" The references as presently provided do not include multiple, non-trivial sources. The suggestion about a redirect is useful as it will both preserve what is here, and guide the reader who uses the artist's name as a search term. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

Pauline Anna Strom[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, based entirely on blogs with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all, of a musician with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where any musician is automatically entitled to have an article just because she can be verified as existing; the article has to document specific achievements that satisfy NMUSIC and are referenced to real reliable source coverage. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP, The two sources listed are blogs and research gives no reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JuliaCameron (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC) JuliaCameron (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, First of all I'd like to say that I am confident that she is a notable musician. She is in a niche as the Avant-garde music is something that obviously doesn't have the same following as other musical genres. Dark ambient, New-age music and other wired and wonderful music does have a following and the artists may not be as popular as others in other genres. Pauline Anna Strom has a strong following. She is actually a pioneer. As a blind female who has entered the new age field and had an output as she did is a feat. She has been recognized for that. She has also contributed to the Electronic Musician magazine multiple times with various articles. Karl Twist (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have improved the article from this to this, and I'm not done yet. This is another example of a notable musician who has had an article hastily created about her. While I applaud the creation of articles such as this, I do wish before the article is created, the creator has a couple more refs and comes back to improve from time to time. I can see the creator, Christinavantzou has contributed well to the Daphne Oram article as well. Good work there. Thanks. Karl Twist (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing you've added so far isn't strong enough; you're relying far too strongly on the existence of her material in online record stores (and illegal Russian music stores that skirt actual copyright issues, at that), namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people that aren't her, and content where she was the author and not the subject. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, see my post 06:20, 7 January 2017. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete She is a notable musician who has been a contributor to many magazines. very influential and should be a part of the encyclopedia. BurritoSlayer (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of coverage in magazines, not by being the bylined author of magazine articles about other things. And NMUSIC is not passed just by asserting that someone is influential and notable and important — it's passed by reliably sourcing their influence and notability and importance to media coverage about them — which the "improvement" that's taken place so far isn't showing, because it's still overly reliant on illegal Russian MP3-download sites and blogs and directories. Bearcat (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Bearcat, She has been the subject in magazines. BurritoSlayer has merely added that she is also a contributor to magazines such as Electronic Musician, some are technical articles, such as published articles in hi-fi or musician magazines. Often these contributors are paid. Quote: "because it's still overly reliant on illegal Russian MP3-download sites and blogs and directories.". There are only 2 sites that are Russian and you are way off on your assertion. Karl Twist (talk) 06:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If she's been the subject of coverage in magazines, then kindly show some. What the article shows so far is that she's been the subject of blog posts and the author of magazine articles, neither of which is what it takes. And per our reliable sourcing rules, even just two illegal Russian MP3 download sites in the referencing pool is still two illegal Russian MP3 download sites too many, so I'm way not off on my "assertion". Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
She has been in various published-paper magazines that include Electronic Musician, Eurock, New Age Journal, and others. Also online magazines The Attic, and others. There's And a couple of other books that have chapters devoted to her. She also contributed to musician mags that incl., Electronic Musician. Profile in books such as John Schaefer's excellent book, New Sounds: A Listener's Guide to New Music. The 2 so-called illegal Russian sites are not props for the article and one of them has ref that can replace the Russian one as it is with the other. The article is not dependant on "blog posts" either. Please be a bit more accurate. Similarly with the Gary Richard Arnold deletion discussion, I believe you're way off. Also with this article like Arnold's, if this gets deleted then that's another important California-related article that is going to be lost. Valuable notable info that can be of great help and interest to researchers is what this is. Karl Twist (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sorry to say the article does not establish notability under the criteria of WP:MUSIC. The albums are all self-released and not on a major label and do not appear to have charted. No mention of any significant touring. While some of the sources falls into the WP:RS bracket it crucially does not establish any notability. Much of it is linked to the MGMT mixtape appearance of "Morning Splendour" - but notability is not inherited. As she has since retired from music, it makes the emergence of further sources unlikely. Regretfully, as I did enjoy listening to her music. Karst (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your 10:58, 10 January 2017 post Karst. Quote:, "The albums are all self-released and not on a major label" - - Her first album Trans-Millenia Consort wasn't self-released. In 1982, she had signed with an outfit called Ether Ship Productions, a production co. in California that evolved out of a performing group. This was the outfit that was to produce her recordings. The first product was herTrans-Millenia Consort debut album, released on Ether Ship Records Cat no. AR3289. The producer for that record was Lemon DeGeorge, and executive producer overseeing the project was the amazing Willard Van de Bogart. The records were manufactured / pressed by Arkay Records in San Jose.[19], South East Asian Review, The Universe on Ketamine: A personal journal documenting ketamine mindscapes by Willard G. Van De Bogart Page 7, and see Discogs. I'd say that after her first 3 LPs, the following ones would have been self-released with the exception of the re-release on Sainty Muffin etc.
Quote: - "Much of it is linked to the MGMT mixtape appearance of "Morning Splendour" - but notability is not inherited" - - I disagree. There's not much linked to the MGMT mixtape. Yes "Morning Splendor" appears on the 2LP album Late Night Tales: MGMT and there's a couple links to that and one other. That's not "most", that's minority!
Quote: - "As she has since retired from music, it makes the emergence of further sources unlikely" - - Well, we wouldn't want to apply that kind of reason to J. D. Salinger or Sylvester Stewart would we? I believe that her album is an underground classic. She is already recognized in her unique field, and people will discover this more and more. She is notable as she is now. But she will have more written about her as it's happening now. Even if that were not to happen, she still is notable. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PS: It's quite likely that she has been an influence on experimental musicians such as Áine O’Dwyer etc. Karl Twist (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin please note:, I have placed Bearcat's 17:42, 11 January 2017 post below here as it was incorrectly placed in that section after it was closed and new section relisted by King of Hearts on 03:59, 10 January 2017. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 03:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you're completely missing what's being said. We are looking for substantive coverage about her, not just nominal namechecks of her existence — but of the two Electronic Musician citations present here, both namecheck her as the author of content in the magazine and not as the subject of content in the magazine. The Quietus, BMA Magazine and NME each just namecheck her existence a single time within a review of some other unrelated artist's work, and are not about her. New Age Journal blurbingly namechecks her existence in a newsbriefs column, while not being substantive. Eurock is not being cited at all; The Attic is a blog, and not a notable magazine that can assist passage of WP:GNG at all. And what else have we got for sourcing here? Radio Free Midwich: WordPress blog. Wunderfrontier: Blogspot blog. Tiny Mix Tapes: blog. Earth Portals: unreliable fansite of an unrelated band, self-published by a random non-notable non-journalist. South East Asian Review: namechecks her existence in an essay written by a direct collaborator of hers, thus failing the independence requirement. Sonic Hits: PR site, unable to demonstrate notability. Discogs.com: directory site, unable to aid notability. And on and so forth — the depth of reliable source coverage needed to make her notable simply is not being shown. As at Gary Richard Arnold, I am evaluating the sources correctly, and you're the one who fails to understand what constitutes a valid source and what doesn't. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Bearcat's 17:42, 11 January 2017 post. Quote: - "Once again, you're completely missing what's being said. We are looking for substantive coverage about her, not just nominal namechecks of her existence — but of the two Electronic Musician citations present here, both namecheck her as the author of content in the magazine and not as the subject of content in the magazine." - I'm not completely missing anything. But it seems that you are. Yes she has had articles posted in the Electronic Musician magazine. I've included 2 of the technical articles she wrote for the magazine. One in May 1986 and one for another time. What you have neglected to mention is that she was also interviewed for an article published in the magazine. June 1985. She was also interviewed in 1986, published in Eurock magazine.
Quote: - "The Attic is a blog, and not a notable magazine that can assist passage of WP:GNG" -- Excuse me, The Attic which have her album Plot Zero a 5 star rating is not a blog! It is an online music magazine that publishes articles about international artists. It organizes musical events as well. Events covered in Google News etc. It also organized the very first Outernational Days festival . There's an article about the fest on The Wire, here. As far as I know, Blogs don't organize festivals that have international artists unless they have become self aware.
Quote: - - "Sonic Hits: PR site, unable to demonstrate notability. Discogs.com: directory site, unable to aid notability" - - They're not there to demonstrate notability. They are there to show and make it easy to follow her recordings etc. and catalogue, which by the way is contained in John Schaefer's excellent book, New Sounds: A Listener's Guide to New Music which gives her discography, profile and background. Unfortunately Google Books is only showing part of it.
Quote: - "As at Gary Richard Arnold, I am evaluating the sources correctly" - - Like the Gary Richard Arnold deletion, you neglected to address very important key points and overlooked obvious points. Pauline Anna Strom is not Vangelis and she is not Mike Oldfield. But she is notable. Her music is much more niche that that and she is in a genre that has a narrower but still strong following. Yes the music is way out. BTW: Have you ever picked up a music reference book where only mainstream artists like The Eagles and The Rolling Stones are covered. There are 8 pages devoted to The Rolling Stones and a only page and a half (2 ifg you're lucky) devoted to Jimi Hendrix. Half a page devoted to Blood Sweat & Tears and where's Arthur Lee????? Taking the aim and blast approach pushes Wikipedia towards that! Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 09:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FFS. For starters, as I've already pointed out, articles which a person wrote in a magazine do absolutely jack squat to assist in demonstrating notability — a person has to be the subject of a source, not its author, for that source to assist in demonstrating passage of GNG. The Electronic Musician articles do not assist her notability at all, because a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of media coverage written by other people, and not by being the author of media coverage about other subjects. Secondly, the difference between an "online magazine" and a "blog", for our purposes, is not determined by what the publication calls itself — it's determined by variables such as the presence or absence of a named masthead of editorial contributors so that we know who's actually writing the content. A publication that does not have that, as The Attic does not if you actually peruse its actual website, does not get over our RS rules just by calling itself a "magazine". We determine what is or isn't a reliable source by evaluating the publication against our criteria — and The Attic does not pass them. Thirdly, you then dismiss the issue with all of the other sources as "not there to demonstrate notability" — but if they're "not there to demonstrate notability", and no other source in the article demonstrates notability, then she's absolutely nowhere on the "is notable" scale — because notability is determined by the quality of sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support it. And yet again, I did not "neglect" to address any "important key points" and I did not "overlook" obvious points: every single thing I said in that discussion was exactly correct and I didn't miss a single solitary thing about anything whatsoever. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to Bearcat's 00:32, 15 January 2017 post. OK Bearcat, I'll try this again. Quote: - - "FFS. For starters, as I've already pointed out, articles which a person wrote in a magazine do absolutely jack squat to assist in demonstrating notability ". - - Yes I am aware of this and I have said it previously. I was merely pointing out that Strom has contributed technical articles to magazines such as Electronic Musician to give an idea of her journalistic, no ...journalistic is not the correct term. A Technical article contributor would be the better description. The fact that she was blind and contributed to those magazines gives an idea of her breadth. That's not to give props to her notability. I'm trying to indicate what else is out there. As a blind musician who has technical knowledge, she will have been publications that would be accessed by education and other study groups. She has been covered in articles written by others, Electronic Musician that she was also interviewed for an article published in Electronic Musician, June 1985, and Eurock, Issue #31 (11/86), and others, also John Schaefer's excellent book, New Sounds: A Listener's Guide to New Music, which is an invaluable tool.
Quote: - "Secondly, the difference between an "online magazine" and a "blog", for our purposes, is not determined by what the publication calls itself" .... "A publication that does not have that, as The Attic does not if you actually peruse its actual website" - - Well, notable media sources all in Google News refer to The Attic as a magazine. Your original attempt to merely pass it off as a blog was grossly inaccurate in how it was placed. The media sources that refer to The Attic as a magazine, and found in Google Groups include ..... Dilema veche - * and RomaniaLibera.ro - *. Also British pop culture magazine online music magazine, The Quietus - * and the British avant-garde music magazine, The Wire - *. There's quite a few others in Google News that refer to The Attic as a magazine and a media source. Sorry but I choose to go with those media sources say rather than what you suggest. Again, Pauline Anna Strom's genre or sub-genre is a narrower field. It takes a bit more time to sift though and research. Already I have determined that she is notable! And I can see one of her albums, possibly two having articles of their own.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to Karst - Attn: Karst, please do not play around with the posts. If someone misses the closure of a section then that's unfortunate, as per: "Please add new comments below this notice". Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 08:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]


  • Note to closing admin, I believe this article to be notable. If by chance during the process of final evaluation (whenever that may be), it is determined by the person closing this Afd that the article at the present time in it's present state cannot be kept, I would ask that it be redirected to something like Ambient music. This could be done, ensuring the page history is intact so that when the content of the page is restored, we have the history that goes back to the original creation date. Of course I hope that it doesn't come to this as I believe Pauline Anna Strom is notable as she is. With confidence, I have no doubt in my mind that with the interest in Ambient and (Whatever actual genre) space-type music and artists, there will be more articles on her published by various sources. I have seen indications of this. That time, I have no doubt that even the most over-zealous, Wikipedia contributor or culler will not go for deletion. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 NCRHA Division I season[edit]

2008–09 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero citation or external links. no indication of notability Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 21:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced, non-notable sportscruft. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Necmi Dayday[edit]

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

No clue indicates that this is notable. Evolutionoftheuniverse (talk) 01:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shashie Verma[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to Shorgul: A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E also fails to pass WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not ready yet to get its own article space. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject does not yet appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. I'm not completely opposed to a redirect either, per nom's suggestion.  Gongshow   talk 18:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Life Church Bristol[edit]

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

not notable Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article makes no claim of notability. This one falls under WP:ROUTINE. I also note that it was created by an SPA. MB 06:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7. No claim of importance, even an incredible one (in the literal sense). Article simply states that the organization exists. TimothyJosephWood 14:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Trachtenburg[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete neither the author nor his works appear to have coverage in RS. TimothyJosephWood 20:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some passing mentions in sources online, but nothing in the article or in my search would support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Johnny's Jr.. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elle Cecil[edit]

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

BLP-Prod tag removed by ipv6 SPA account, possibly Elle Cecil himself, without adding additional refs. Second ref nothing. Absolutely abysmal references. This is message from prod tag.

Single reference points to a quiz page. Translation doesn't mention Elle Cecil name. Additional primary and seconary references needed for verification of BLP article. scope_creep (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Santa Claus. Protected to prevent recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho[edit]

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

This page was first nominated for deletion in 2005 when the result was keep. It was nominated again in 2006 with the result merge/redirect to Santa Claus. Although that was actioned, the article was quickly recreated to avoid the redirect with the addition of a list of ‘Characters associated with this laugh’.

The Characters associated with this laugh section is referenced solely to YouTube videos, but even if proper citations could be found this can never amount to anything more than a list of fictional characters that are connected by some random fictional characteristic. It can no more be encyclopedic than, say, List of Fictional Characters Wearing Red Jumpers.

The article is fundamentally unencyclopedic and fails WP:NOT. Apart from a dictionary-style definition, the only useful information it contains is the reference to the Canadian postal code, information which has been included within the Santa Claus article for many years. It would be better replaced with the text of what is now Ho ho ho (disambiguation), with an added link to Santa Claus. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Redirect to Santa Claus. The consensus was reached to redirect/merge it a decade ago, and just because a user subsequently decided to ignore the AFD and restore it doesn't mean that consensus is no longer valid. Especially when it concerns an article as vapid and unsourced as this one. The article space should be restored to a redirect, but I think the article should be deleted first, as to eliminate the history to prevent another such case of an attempted restore. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & redirect to Santa Claus, and possibly lock the redirect so that the article is not recreated. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Salt and Redirect to Santa Claus - Non notable to warrant an article however deleting and locking obviously prevents it from being created. –Davey2010Talk 01:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitglass[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP in that coverage is in online sources with narrow audiences, such as TechCrunch and Network World (WP:AUD). No national media could be found other than short articles about a fundraising event (not itself notable) in Forbes and similar sources. It may be WP:TOOSOON for a relatively young startup company. The company does not yet seem to have adequate broad market coverage or interest to merit encyclopedic treatment. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:54, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. I actually looked it up on Wikipedia after reading about it in TechCrunch, but the current article is too short. Perhaps it could be moved to a userspace until it gets expanded?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Budowsky[edit]

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

This article relies far too much on sources that are works written by Budowsky. There is not significant coverage of him in 3rd party indepdent sources, definately not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete May I add that I blog for the Huffington Post and I know a few friends who are freelance journalists, and they also have the Hill contributor accounts. Moral of the story: You don't need to be notable to have a Huff Post or the Hill blogger account. If you are friends with the editors, you can get one, regardless of experience. As a result, the subject does not meet the requirements to be worthy of its own article space. Perhaps, the subject can have a brief mention on the Hill or Huff Post articles under 'contributors'. But that's about it. Blog accounts are not reliable sources that establishes notability. And I don't find any independent sources covering the subject in-depth, or demonstrates the subject's impact in the industry they are in. Scorpion293 (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and added 2 WP:RS establishing that he is a paid, employed news columnist at The Hill, not freelancer with a Hill contributor account.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning keep Added a couple of articles that are about stuff he wrote, there is probably more out there about him since he has been covering national politics for years and is a relatively well-known journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is so often true, if a small # of sources pop right up, more will turn up with a more powerful search. Budowsky is a fairly well-known columnist, ideas he puts forward in his columns get picked up, discussed, cited, and often ignite small flurries among the political commentariat. I ran a proquest search but have not added all of this sort of material, only added 2 solid sources confirming that editor above was mistaken, he is a paid, professional columnist. Article needs expansion. changed my iVote from "leaning" to "keep."E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Forces[edit]

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

non-notable L1A1 FAL (talk) 03:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if nobody is going to try to find sources to establish notability. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the band evidently is no longer in existence. Only played a handful of live show and never released any material. Fails the criteria of WP:MUSIC entirely. Karst (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RocketLoans[edit]

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

Simply nothing at all for actual independent notability and substance given the sheer fact that (regardless of publication or name) the listed sources are still in fact simply business announcements, interviews, mentions and notices and it's damning enough this was speedied once before until being restarted by the same account, which I presume is a company employee or affiliate, as no one would ever care to restart such advertising. We have explicit policies about this and they especially exist for such clear advertising, and since searches found nothing but mirorred PR, that says enough. SwisterTwister talk 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. I am unable to find any reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Cyali (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Quicken Loans. This is appears to be part of the Quicken Loans family of companies. The parent is definitely notable, as are some of its sibling companies. But this one hasn't independently achieved notability. It may in the future given the aggressive tactics of the Quicken Loans family (such as Super Bowl ads) but right now it's WP:TOO SOON.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a promotional article on an unremarkable company. I don't see a reason to merge as the content is strictly promotional. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No Major, No Problem[edit]

No Major, No Problem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable one time college music festival. Only sources are campus paper, event listings and social media. Fails NTOUR and GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per the nomination, sources are all local. Karst (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - So far shorted lived "festival", except it's not a festival it seems but an event at a mid-sized local bar. No news coverage of any importance that I can find. TimothyJosephWood 15:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Hepner[edit]

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

Hepner's one almost notable action is being Miss Montana. However holding a state title of this type is not enough to grant notability alone. This is the clear consensus of the discussion presently on the talk page of the wikiproject for beauty pageants. There is no coverage of Hepner outside of coverage related to her being Miss Montana. This article has some special issues that scream we should delete it. The entry on the Miss Montana page has more information related to her being Miss Montana, specifically that she was dismissed from her duties early. It is not currently explained there, but it was related to a DUI charge. For whatever reason that is not mentioned here. In the last deletion discussion a year ago I supported keeping the article. I have since come to realize that state level beauty pageant winners are not notable. There is no coverage of Hepner outside of Montana and none outside of the generalized period of her being Miss Montana, and we have enough on that on the Miss Montana page, so we should delete this article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not notability requirements being just a state beauty pageant winner. Rogermx (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no inherent notability for a state-level pageant win. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Todd[edit]

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

Todd was Miss Flordia. This title alone is not enough to demonstate notability, and there is nothing in the sourcing or anything else to rise to the level of GNG. The first source is not a working link. It might, or might not, connect to a local Florida paper covering Todd's win, in some level of detail, I am not sure. The second source is to an article on her from the University of Central Florida paper. We generally do not consider college papers sources that are enough to add towards a student at that college passing GNG. The remaining sources are here website for her company, clearly not indepdent of her, her facebook page, not useable to add towards GNG, and an IMDb listing for her for participation in Miss Amwerica (which as a state winning contestant is not notable) and her role in Bridget's Sexist Beaches. IMDb is not a reliable source, clearly not useable to show notability. Bridget's Sexdiest Beaches redirects to the host, Bridget Marquant, and the one line reference to it in the article on her ends with a citation needed tag. Beyond that, Todd only appeared in one episode of the TV show. Like all the other characters she appeared as herself, for whatever that is worth. I did find this [20] connected with Todd being a cover model for Planet Beach Spray and Spa, but it is hardly a reliable source let alone indepdent of her. Her Linkedin page here [21] lists multiple roles in advertising and modeling in a passing way, but that is not a reliable source showing any are notable. Here's a mention to her coming in 12th in Tennessee for a Jet Set Mag competition [22], which seems so low it is not worth mentioning. I was able to find a page from a modeling agency she worked with here [23]. There do not appear to be any sources that show her notable as either an actress or a model, and her winning Miss Florida is just not enough to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stuff in the nomination like ""Miss Flordia," "demonstate," "indepdent," "Miss Amwerica," and "Sexdiest Beaches" make it hard to take this seriously. Edison (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Her own website lists her accomplishments as Miss Florida, yoga instructor, certified health coach, Certified in Positive Psychology, and model. Model would probably be the best path to notability, but I haven't found any evidence she is there. Becoming Miss Florida in 2009 is not enough on its own. MB 01:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no IAR appeal here. Relevant parts of WP:V and WP:N are alluded to but not specifically named. Per WP:V, the subject's own self-published website cannot support claims of notability. Per WP:N, WP:notability requires verifiable evidence, which is lacking here. From there, the editor named the most relevant notability guidelines, which the subject appears to fail. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is a guideline, whereas WP:Deletion policy includes the alternatives to deletion that are not optional in an argument for a WP:DEL8 deletion.  There is an out, to keep this as a deletion discussion, which is to invoke IAR...but if you've correctly interpreted this editor, "[t]here is no IAR appeal here."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATD is not a mandate for endless procedure. "If an article can be improved" depends on the availability of reliable source coverage. Or to put it more bluntly, you can't polish a turd. One of the five pillars of Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Among other things, Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Please also see WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Again, notability is the guideline we follow most of the time to support WP:NOT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If these "we" viewpoint(s) represent solid arguments, why the argument to excrement?

    The WP:NOTBURO point is a viewpoint that WP:ATD is established policy to be rebutted, but curiously WP:NOTBURO also brings in a WP:IAR element, even while previous comments have said that other editors are not making the IAR argument.  So there is no consensus for IAR. 

    As for WP:NOT, as far as WP:Deletion policy, WP:NOT arguments are a DEL-REASON of WP:DEL14. 

    A review of WP:IINFO suggests no visible relation to this discussion, as the four main points there are:

  1. Summary-only descriptions of works.
  2. Lyrics databases.
  3. Excessive listings of unexplained statistics.
  4. Exhaustive logs of software updates.
WP:NOTDIRECTORY also appears to be a WP:VAGUEWAVE:
  1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional).
  2. Genealogical entries.
  3. The White or Yellow Pages. Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses is not encyclopedic.
  4. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business.
  5. Sales catalogues.
  6. Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y".
  7. Simple listings without context information.
I checked the article history and the talk page, and for the six years of that history there is no record of anyone with concerns about the notability of this topic, much less concerns that the topic should be deleted. 

The correct way for the community to deal with this issue is to remove it from an improper forum, as the only reason this is here is to get it deleted against WP:Deletion policy and without making an IAR argument.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- clearly non notable subject and a A7 material with trivia such as "Todd was vice president of membership for the Kappa Delta sorority and a member of the Delta Epsilon Iota and Rho Lambda honor societies" (seriously?). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. Winning a state-level beauty pageant does not rise to the level of WP:NMODEL/WP:NACTOR. Neither does the subject's acting and modelling career without non-trivial acknowledgement by independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Dean and Dan Caten. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dsquared²[edit]

Dsquared² (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: as blatant advertising/promotionalism. Quis separabit? 04:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Note also that a previous version of this article was deleted recently, and another copy (in Italian) at Dsquared was created and deleted in 2005. Another version was created there in 2006, and since 2008 has redirected to Dean and Dan Caten (which has some poor references that need to be pruned). Mindmatrix 22:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least redirect Merge to Dean and Dan Caten - this is certainly a quite major/high profile brand/company. At the moment, I am completely burned out on article editing/creation, or I might try to salvage it. There are certainly lots of potential sources. For example, there's really quite extensive and substantial commentary here in this book of academic/peer-reviewed essays, citing a number of other sources for their findings, which is a good indicator that the subject passes Wikipedia notability. There is also substantial coverage across a wide range of genre publications, and the firm has been responsible for a number of high-profile productions, such as tours for Beyonce and the 2016 Olympics outfits for Team Canada. That last article also links to a couple of very interesting articles about the company/designer's use of inappropriate terminology the previous year: [24]; [25]. There does seem to be plenty of international coverage and sources out there for the finding. Mabalu (talk) 11:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Dean and Dan Caten. While Mabalu does demonstrate that there's stronger coverage out there to support notability much better than this article currently does as written, I remain unconvinced that we need to maintain two separate articles about "Dsquared" and "Dean and Dan Caten" as separate topics from each other — particularly given that the "BLP" is mostly about their work as Dsquared anyway. They should be merged as one article. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely support the merge proposal and have edited my comment accordingly. Mabalu (talk) 11:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Super Genius (album)[edit]

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

Subject is a non-charting album without the amount of sources required to comply with GNG. It has a primary source, its label's website, but that alone (I could not find other reliable sources), does not help much at all. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Contemporary reviews found from Option ([26]) and CD Review Digest ([27]), plus retrospective coverage from teamrock.com ([28]), A.V. Club ([29]), and Trouser Press ([30]). Further print coverage from the time of its release is very likely. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 talk 02:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the band page. I went through some of the sources and included them but at the moment they are too thin on the ground to warrant a page on its own considering the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 12:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RAN (Indonesian group)[edit]

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

Minimally active since only 3 albums listed and news found are only a few news articles from the past 4 years showing there's still no actual genuine substanc for notability here, and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. Simply being signed at a label is not at all a convincing factor since we've deleted several articles which were signed but not convincing in actual substance as is the case here, and my own searches of Indonesia newspapers found nothing but few news stories (Jakarta Post, whereas Jakarta Globe found nothing), and likewise, singles themselves are not an instant notability inheritance. For example, this shows the available news but they noticeably consist of only entertainment blogs and similar. SwisterTwister talk 01:12, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. Deletion rationale makes no sense. This is a group that has been together for over 10 years, in which time they have released five albums, at least four on Universal Records, and they have had hit singles in Indonesia - all sourced. Comfortably satisfies WP:NMUSIC. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - releases on a major label. Karst (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of 10 meter diving platforms in the United States[edit]

List of 10 meter diving platforms in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:OR. And the diving platforms itself are non-notable, as none of the platforms have their own article... The Banner talk 03:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are very few of these, and it is reasonable to provide a list of them. The comment that no single diving platform has a separate article is irrelevant; there is no requirement that individual items in a list must be separately Wikipedia-article-notable. This is a reasonable effort by a brand new editor, with references, which should be encouraged. Deleting the article would eliminate ALL of the editor's contributions/edits in Wikipedia. Let's not do this. Give Wikipedia a chance to grow, instead of turning away every single new contributor. Perhaps the topic could be broadened and the article could be re-titled eventually, after this is further developed, but that is a matter for Talk page discussion and organic development. It seems fine as a topic to me. "Looks like OR" sounds pretty mean. Look, this is personal for the editor(s) involved: the AFD nomination is saying their work is so bad it must be completely deleted, which is not the case at all. --doncram 04:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Is like "list of people with one ear" or "list of left-handed gynecologists", a trivial list of Olympic-sized diving boards? Do we track lists of FIFA-approved football pitches? Olympic-length pools? FIBA basketball courts in the US? The personal and possibly hurt feelings of an editor are not relevant, as no one owns a Wikipedia article, so sorry, but this is trivia. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like a genuine effort to share information that may be useful to some people. Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this is a list of a specific item that is required for an Olympic sport and the total number seems to be relatively small making them rare. Agree it would certainly be useful to some people. MB 01:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no view, except to say that WP:LISTN specifically says if "...the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is exactly the kind of standalone list that is notable, with sources to establish the details. Alansohn (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to the nominator, the absence of a main article such as 10 meter diving platform could be construed as a sign that this form of diving platform is not especially notable. But again, I've no !vote to make, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected 10 meter diving platform to diving platform. There is a main article now. And it is reasonable to have the list of the 10-meter ones split out of the main article. --doncram 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't we be evaluating the merits of the article and not focusing on whether the author's feelings are going to be hurt? Some ofI the comments are downright patronizing. Based on the article, I say keep. There aren't that many 10-meter platforms in the US which is surprising to me since it's a regular NCAA event. They are also difficult to discover--colleges want to talk about their swimming facilities but diving seems to get overlooked.Glendoremus (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the reason given for deletion, that this is original research, is invalid. The information is quite referenceable, and the list is potentially useful. It may however be a synthesis, as I cannot see that anyone else has published such a list before. If for some strange reason we have to get rid of this topic, I would suggest merging to 10 meter diving platform, which could become a standalone article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting opinion but as far as I know there is not a single article about an individual 10 meter diving platform. And as far as I know, there is not a single article about an individual diving tower. What you suggest to merge into Diving platform, would make the article severely USA=biased, so that does not look like a valid option either. The Banner talk 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it's only a listing and the Keep comments emulate "It's important", "It's a genuine effort", "This is the kind of article", and "We have few of these", but since the actual information here is nothing but a mini-sized list with a few tossed sources, that's not significant, and it's something easily best suited for another larger article. At this basis, even if it's Olympics-included, it's still only a listing and is questionable for the needed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are rare enough that a list of them is notable and not cruft, and references do exist. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janne Wallenius[edit]

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

It is inappropriate and a conflict of interest for this author of this autobiographical page to assert his own importance within the global scientific community as he has done on the talk page in contesting the deletion. See WP:AUTOBIOG which states "Just because you honestly believe you are being neutral doesn't mean you are. Unconscious biases can and do exist, and are a very common cause of the problems with autobiographies—which is why we discourage autobiographies themselves and not just active, deliberate self-promotion." Also, see WP:PROUD which discusses how writing a Wikipedia entry about oneself is a violation of the Neutrality Point of View policy. Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - A search of Google Books and Google Scholar indicates he passes WP:ACADEMIC. Although the article was submitted by the subject, the article has been edited by several long term editors. The essay at WP:PROUD does not state that it is a violation of NPOV. CBS527Talk 04:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is highly unusual for a "new editor" with a total of 6 edits (all pertaining to the deletion of this page) to be nominating an article for AFD. ([31]) CBS527Talk 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This new editor plans to contribute to Wikipedia in the near future with other more positive edits and updates. The choice to focus on the current article was raised by the unusual flags for the autobiographical nature of the subject page and the lack of notability flag. The editor had not encountered such flags on other subject Wikipedia pages. Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Google Scholar search reveals only an average number of papers in mostly low impact journals for a full professor and one self-published book. If those academic contributions merit a Wikipedia page, then every full professor would have one. Wikipedia is not meant to be an outlet for the self-promotion of academics or a means by which academics communicate their research to the broader scientific community. There are other websites designed for that purpose -- (most notably Google Scholar and ResearchGate). Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In addition to the lack of notability as an academic (at least outside of Sweden), the originating author (subject) violates Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies by discussing (arguably promoting) his start-up company, LeadCold, within his page. See the example presented in WP:ACTUALCOI, which states "An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment, and he is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.[14] Example: A business owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about his own business." Gail W 1965 (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gail W 1965 If you want to expand on your own comments, add further text to your existing comments in preference to creating a new section. You can start a new paragraph indented the same as your bulleted paragraph by starting a line with a colon (:). It is not necessary, nor proper, to add recommendations (Keep or Delete) more than once as you have done here and above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbs527 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 02:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Sources are ok in the article. Also per search at Google Books. The notion that he is not an established academic outside Sweden is irrelevant, he is a known one inside. The supposed problem of Promo is a problem that can be solved, even the editors that says Delete per it claims that it is a slight problem. No reason for deletion if sources overall points towards notability.BabbaQ (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing user I also note that the nominator Gail W 1985 has given two Delete !votes plus the nom itself. Only the nom should be considered.BabbaQ (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a professor. Obviously notable.--Ipigott (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being a professor doesn't automatically confer notability. This is clear from WP:NACADEMICS, which spells out criteria for judging professors to be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per IPiggot and BabbaQ. Article subject passes WP:GNG and should be retained. Antonioatrylia (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Many well-cited papers, a Scopus h-index of 21 and lots of GBooks hits suggest the subject passes WP:PROF#C1, although physics is a high-citation field and he doesn't appear to hit any of the other criteria. Similarly he seems to be mentioned a lot in the news, particularly in relation to his start up, which may scrape past WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO. Not super convincing in isolation but I think taken together these demonstrate notability. The issue of promotional content has evidently already been fixed. – Joe (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TruEnergy[edit]

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

Purely promotional article with no indication of satisfying WP:ORG. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 01:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Zackmann08, I completely understand your point of view on this matter; however, maybe I just did not include enough information or cited the wrong sources. As TruEnergy is not a publicly traded company, I didn't want to write too much thinking it would be too promotional as this is my first article. If there is any way that I can adjust it to be more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines, please let me know. I would be happy to remove or add information; however, I think removing it completely would be against Wikipedia's rules as it is notable for the following reasons... (I would like to write about a few others that have earned notoriety in the food and beverage space as I believe it is under represented compared to tech.)
1. According to their website, TruEnergy has been featured in the following publications; Forbes, Fortune, Food Dive, New York Business Journal, DrinkPreneur, Yzzi Does It, Food Navigator USA, TrendHunter Lifestyle, Food Tank, The Daily Meal, Alley Watch, Boston University School of Business, FoodBev Media, Startup Convo, NY INTL, Tech Food Magazine, Treatmo. They also have podcasts with Beer League and Food-X, as well as videos with Spiritual Adrenaline and January Diaries
2. They have received negative press in Medium, which argues the point that it is all promotional
3. One of their advisors is Polar Beverages (one of the biggest seltzers companies in the USA) and they have a key endorser with Mike Condon of the Ottawa Senators (NHL) and have other high level professional athletes who have been pictured with the product. Their founder is also a former professional hockey player.
4. They have investment from Venture Capital (SOSVentures) and angel investors (unnamed). They ran a successful crowdfunding Kickstarter campaign with backers internationally and also participated in the accelerators, Startup52 and Food-X (a global food based accelerator).
5. They have key specialty sports accounts with Pure Hockey (biggest hockey retailer in the USA) and Running Specialty Group (owned by Finishline and second biggest running specialty chain). They sell on Amazon (largest internet based retailer) and have partnered with Jet.com (owned by Walmart). They sell product with Global Partners (Fortune 500 company) and A&B Vending (biggest New England vending machine company)
6. They have received product reviews from Drinkpreneur (outside of the USA), and BevNet (leading beverage-oriented media company). They are claiming to create a new category of beverage entirely with the first sport shot which I think is also notable.
In the end, I apologize if this sounds too defensive; however, I spent a lot of time reading Wikipedia rules and other articles within the space in order to construct a good first article as I believe this company is notable and I just wanted to give my final reasons as to why. I stand by my reasoning, but do as you want. Kellyrichter (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not yet notable per WP:CORP and WP:TOOSOON. I can only see passing mentions of them in the news, and some coverage in niche startup blogs. They might well be notable in a year, who knows. Wikishovel (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At this moment, built to promote this brand and nothing else. Wikipedia is more than PR host for such brands. Light2021 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam; content belongs on the company web site not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable company as it has notable investors, advisors, employees, and endorsers, as well as major clients, a unique product, and lots of respected press. Kellyrichter (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Kellyrichter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Also note that this user has been confirmed to have created a WP:SOCK to promote the page. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The substance of the article is promotional as to the company, its owners and its products. With sources such as "DrinkPreneur, "Kickstarter," "Foodnavigator" and its own website, the focus is on overt promotion. Even the tone of the two "Fortune" articles is more focused on the "entrepreneur-as-entrepreneur" than the organization. Geoff | Who, me? 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable company as it was also featured in Fortune Magazine this week with 799 shares. I also believe the Forbes and Fortune article are means for notability as these are major publications and not local newspapers. I agree that references like "Drinkpreneur", "Kickstarter", and "FoodNavigator" are promotional so I deleted the citations and got rid of Kickstarter in the article. Foodie99 (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Anka[edit]

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

Apparently this was deleted in 2015 and recreated. Still not independently notable apart from connections to family members; WP:GNG meets WP:NOTINHERITED. Julietdeltalima (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or WP:G4 and salt (this will be the third deletion) if no substantial change from the previous version. Doesn't seem to have actually had a job in the interim between this article and the last, so nothing that I see which should change the decision there. Coverage appears mostly (or nearly completely) about her being...around famous people, and a few minor roles and voice overs does not constitute notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let me know when Top Flite Empire gets created and I will restore the history and redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnautic[edit]

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

Proposing deletion for lack of notability. While the article has lots of references the independent coverage of Hypnautic is trivial at best. Several references fail to mention him at all. Searches turn up very little additional, mainly interviews which don't help. Fails WP:N,WP:BIO and WP: BAND. If the subject was Top Flite Empire (music group) it might be salvageable. Gab4gab (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and Redirect to Top Flite Empire - There isn't an incredible amount out there about this one person, but I think that significant coverage exists in sources about the group. Specifically, I believe that this article, this interview, along with independent coverage of their music such as this, and coverage of their views such as this are examples of sources that demonstrate that the group passes WP:GNG and merits their collective inclusion in Wikipedia. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All WP:TOOSOON. Crucially, I cannot find any reference to the Billboard chart which would highlight the notability. If that can be found and referenced I would be minded to change my position to a weak keep. Karst (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penske PC-10[edit]

Penske PC-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced. Very few links (none in the article body) and no indication of notability. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A surprising keep for me, but if this design won 153 Indycar races, including being Al Unser Sr.'s car, then there's at least a chance that this car design is notable in the history of open wheel racing. The article as written might not get there, but the data is coming together. An alternative would be to gather and merge this and similar articles into a single article for history of open wheel race designs, but I lack adequate knowledge to do so. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 21:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but correct. a very significant car for its day. However, the PC-10b was not a flat bottom design. It still had its ground effect tunnels, just no skirts, and the bottom of the tub had to be lower than anything else by 1 inch at Indy and 2 inches for CART events. Also, both Mears and Unser drove PC-11s at Indy in 1983. The decision to modify the PC-10 and press it back into service came later in the season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.102.83.213 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Racers (2002 video game)[edit]

Gadget Racers (2002 video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since January 2009. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it looks like a weak case for keep based on those sources. So IGN + GameSpot + the PS mag (if anyone can find it), but what else? Electric Playground? The rest are mostly unreliable (or offline) unless I'm missing something. czar 07:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what standard you're holding it to - 3 itself is enough - but yes, there are more out there. Gamespot wrote a pretty lengthy preview on it here too. There's further coverage if we're lumping the GBA version of it in the article, which it currently seems to do due to the identical name. Sergecross73 msg me 14:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IGN review for GBA version, AllGame review for GBA version, Nintendo Power also has a review of the GBA version apparently. The problem is I think all of these sources including the Metacritic ones might be for a different game. Choro Q video games says there are multiple games released as Gadget Racers. These sources are all for Choro Q HG (Gadget Racers in NA, Penny Racers in EU), whereas Gadget Racers (2002 video game) is about Choro Q HG 3 (Gadget Racers in EU, cancelled in NA). --The1337gamer (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saasu[edit]

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

Basically advertising. Even the article in the Australian is a pure advertorial from the beginning to end, and none of the references are any better. Advertorials are not a RS for notable , no matter where published. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The stories in The Age and the SMH provide only passing coverage of this company and as noted in the nomination statement the story in The Australian is an obvious advertorial and so not a RS. The other references are to specialist sites, and aren't very useful for establishing notability. As such, WP:ORG isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - weak Does not meet current GNG or NSUBJECT/s. However, is this a test of our current NGs? The subject matter clearly has reasonable penetration in its context, with a range of third parties now being involved. Perhaps TOOSOON might be a better reason for not keeping it? Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom Light2021 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- "minor tech company" spam. Having 20 employees strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - [32] looks stronger as a reference than anything else here (it appears to be part of an independent test of that sort of accounting software, but by itself that's not enough, and the existing refs are largely reprinted PR. WP:CORPDEPTH just isn't met here yet. --joe deckertalk 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TOOSOON Minor Company fails WP:NCORP --Cameron11598 (Talk) 00:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discuss merging instead. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devil's Got Your Gold[edit]

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

Not independently notable. No references. Merge with Frank (band) Rathfelder (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator explicitly says merging is the necessary course of action, effectively nullifying this nomination. Perhaps an RfC would be a better way to handle this. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_January_10&oldid=1142619002"