Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 January	18 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Bubbio[edit]

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

NN academic, who does not meet WP:PROF or any other notability guideline. This nomination follows on from another deletion discussion of a colleague of Bubbio's, a page with the same creator. Bubbio clearly has less notability than Vardoulakis, the object of the previous AFD, whose notability was asserted on the basis that his books had been reviewed, and the discussion found that this was insufficient to establish notability in an academic. I proposed deletion already but the creator of the page removed the tag telling me to AFD esperant 00:03, 18 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)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 04:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS h-index of 4 [1] insufficient for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe No pass of WP:GNG. Creator of this BLP deserves a WP:TROUT. (talk) 09:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete, but I might be persuaded otherwise if the current main author/editor, User:Pirhayati, could also put in referenced sections such as Significant papers, other than just books, Career, and critically some balanced discussion on his Government grants, including for example [2]. I suspect there might be just enough to satisfy GNG, rather any Nsubject on its own, ie NEXISTS. Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I stick by GNG. My cliam (or the article's claim) is that "Diego Bubbio has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So if someone does not agree, his argument should be one of these: 1. There is not significant coverage (based on definition by Wikipedia:Notability). 2. The sources are not reliable. 3. The sources are not independent. I think none of them would be true: 1. the coverage is significant: his work on sacrifice is covered significantly (by important philosophers like Vattimo). 2. The sources are reliable (Peer-reviewed journals). 3. the sources are independent. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitris Vardoulakis, reviews of books in academic journals can by themselves lead to notability of the books reviewed but cannot be sufficient to establish notability for the author of the books. This is for the practical reason that we must have secondary sources in order to write an article about a subject on Wikipedia and academic book reviews typically do nothing other than synopsise the contents of the book under review. So, no, Diego Bubbio as a personage has not received significant coverage anywhere. esperant 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is apparently your interpretation of the policy. I think coverage of his book is also a coverage of himself. If your interpretation is specifically mentioned somewhere, please make reference. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation is based entirely on WP:GNG which explains significant coverage and gives examples. What is your interpretation based on? esperant 12:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG Says: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The reviews address Bubbio's views directly and in detail. No original research is needed to extract that Bubbio is an influential scholar of sacrifice. His name is not mentioned trivially, but is mentioned repeatedly on every page in the reviews. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said, academic book reviews add very little information, if any, to the primary sources. It is true that they may be taken to reliably report Bubbio's views, but I do not believe knowing his views – which we can know anyway from his primary publications – constitutes the required basis for writing a synthetic encyclopedia article about him. They moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, do not establish the notability of his views. Your claim that 'Bubbio is an influential scholar of sacrifice' strikes me as OR in relation to the book reviews, and indeed untrue: his low citation rate indicates he is not influential by standard academic measures. esperant 23:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to the policies and you continue to express "your" thoughts. "...academic book reviews add very little information, if any, to the primary sources". Where is it mentioned in the policies? Do we have "significant coverage" of Bubbio's works or not? This is a yes-no question and its answer is clear according to GNG. When notable philosophers address Bubbio's views, it is clear that they "recognize" his authority and this recognition is not limited to one book (So the recognition belongs to Bubbio not his book). Also the reviews are "independent", "reliable" and "significant". Again, if you are to oppose this claim, you should emphasize on one of the three sentences I mentioned above and prove their truth. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Ali Pirhayati: I think you are trying to reinvent the wheel with this roundabout interpretation of the GNG. We fully recognise that more tends to be written about notable academics' work than on the people themselves. That's why WP:PROF exists. However, books reviews and citations in other scholarly works are routine in academia and do not amount to significant coverage. WP:PROF#C1 outlines a very longstanding consensus on how we assess the notability of an academic from the impact of their work, and Bubbio clearly does not pass it. – Joe (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's focus on this sentence: "books reviews and citations in other scholarly works are routine in academia and do not amount to significant coverage". 1. In what way are book reviews routine? Routine does not mention book reviews and apparently this is your interpretation. (By the way it's for notability of events not people) Do you mean "all" the philosophical books receive reviews from "notable" philosophers? 2. Please read the definition of "significant coverage" and show me that these reviews are not a case of it. 3. Criterion one says: "The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose." I'm exactly expressing this content and evaluative comments by notable philosophers. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as WP:AUTHOR; an author of multiple published books, with substantive reviews present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Multiple published book reviews provide in-depth analysis of his contributions, and the fact that the reviews are of multiple books saves him from WP:BIO1E. He probably passes WP:AUTHOR, a lower bar than WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last two commenters are incorrect that Bubbio passes WP:AUTHOR. WP:AUTHOR point 2 requires multiple reviews IN ADDITION to creating 'significant or well-known work', not that reviews themselves establish notability. While judgements of what is significant or well-known may vary, I do not believe that there is adequate evidence that Bubbio's work is either significant or well-known. This is precisely why he doesn't pass WP:PROF: he is not widely cited, for one thing. That is to say, I don't believe that WP:AUTHOR can be said to introduce a competing, lower standard for inclusion in Wikipedia, and I think it would be problematic if it did. esperant 03:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Published books receiving numerous reviews and attention in national broadsheets for (controversially) receiving large sums of money. And that's just what's already in the article. Meets the GNG and probably WP:AUTHOR unless we're playing the "guidelines say whatever I want them to say" game. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sample review by Patrick Stokes in Critical Horizons, A Journal of Philosophy and Social Theory:

Paolo Diego Bubbio’s Sacrifice in the Post-Kantian Tradition offers a valuable and insightful discussion of the place of sacrifice plays in nineteenth century European philosophy, setting the stage for its emergence as a central theme in subsequent continental thought. Bubbio offers a strong case for the claim that the foundational move of the post-Kantian tradition is a fundamentally kenotic one. Bubbio is also critical of certain excesses in the way sacrifice is discussed in more recent work. However, the case of Kierkegaard in particular suggests kenosis is not so easily kept within the comfortable boundaries Bubbio prescribes for it: its excesses may be an integral part, rather than a hyperbolic distortion, of the logic of sacrifice.

Additional reviews available from:

Secularizing Kenosis: Review of Sacrifice in the Post-Kantian Tradition: Perspectivism, Intersubjectivity, and Recognition, by Paolo Diego Bubbio. ALZNAUER, MARK. Philosophy Today, Apr 01, 2016; Vol. 60, No. 2, p. 609-614

Kenotic Sacrifice and Philosophy: Paolo Diego Bubbio. Vattimo, Gianni. Research in Phenomenology, Sep 01, 2015; Vol. 45, No. 3, p. 431-435

I believe this passes AUTHOR, in addition to the sources already in the article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:44, 24 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.

Hoda Mokhtar[edit]

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable associate professor. Fails WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as absolutely nothing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly unconvinced the professor meets guidelines for notability at this time. Sro23 (talk) 00:44, 18 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)} 02:45, 18 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)} 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:Too soon [3] to meet WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. – Joe (talk) 09:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2005 PhD, associate professor since 2012. Little on her CV to indicate notability; associate editor of Egyptian Informatics Journal (not the editor-in-chief)[4] and on the editorial board of International Journal of Database Management Systems[5] seem the strongest indications but neither is enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 8. A couple of her papers have respectable citations (71,43) but there's no evidence of a substantial body of cited work to meet WP:PROF 1. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet, at least. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Too few citations in her scholar profile [6], in a high-citation field, to pass WP:PROF#C1, and no other indication of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:14, 23 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 19:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney James Harcourt[edit]

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

Being an understudy for a show, even one as popular as Hamilton, is not even close to being notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He also originated one of the smaller roles aside from being an understudy for the major ones. Ausir (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The role he originated is an extremely minor role that only appears in one scene, and he is still considered just to be an ensemble member. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexi Lawson (2nd nomination) it was agreed that being a replacement wasn't enough for notability. If a replacement isn't enough, understudy isn't even close to enough. JDDJS (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Harcourt's role, James Reynolds, is basically an ensemble role. He has never had a major Broadway role, and even when the cast changed, they did not move him up to a larger role, such as Aaron Burr, which he has understudied, along with two other covers. I don't know if this actor will ever be notable, but he is not notable yet. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does not meet the criteria specified in WP:ENT. The ensemble/understudy roles are not significant. He has not been in multiple productions. If he has a "large fan base" that has not been established. The article does not show any unique contribution by him. To sum, being in a mega-hit show does not confer notability on minor performers. Flami72 (talk) 20:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Stewart[edit]

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

Not notable yet. Only 3 Broadway credits, one was ensemble, one was a very minor role and the other is a replacement role. That's just not enough to be notable. JDDJS (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Subject easily passes WP:NACTOR: with multiple roles in 3 Broadway shows - two of those Broadway shows in major roles; and WP:ANYBIO and WP:BASIC with significant media coverage, including recent coverage here, here and here, and a social media presence of thousands of followers, significant enough to be verified on two separate platforms, here and here. Frankly, I see no basis for this nomination. Article clearly needs expansion and additional sources, which are readily available. But just as clearly, subject is notable. X4n6 (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He has one major role. Graffiti Pete is not a major role. JDDJS (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have you read the links I provided, JDDJS? Are you not aware of whom this article is about? His current Broadway roles are as the Marquis de Lafayette & Thomas Jefferson in Hamilton. And Graffiti Pete is indeed a major role. So much so, it was newsworthy when Stewart left the role. Also, Stewart was called "a particular standout" in that role in the original New York Times review. So your claims that the role wasn't major and he's only had one major role, are clearly wrong. Again, the article needs expansion, but that is no basis for nomination. Subject's press coverage proves he's notable. But I'll list the article as a stub, which will resolve this. X4n6 (talk) 06:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article needs improvements, but its not a reason for deletion. Subject has received rather significant press coverage. I also doubt we can say that he has only 3 Broadway credits, especially when his contribution is not small. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what discussion you are commenting in? Seth Stewart is a male. JDDJS (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JDDJS: I do. Thanks for pointing it out. An oversight, it happens. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can understand why this article was nominated. It's a good faith nomination where the nominator may have missed the sources. I missed them too in my initial search and wouldn't have looked further but for the comments of the !voters above. My review of the sources confirms the subject passes NACTOR. I'm hopeful someone will expand this article. It has good GA potential and can be expanded. Lourdes 03:10, 25 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Lee Crawford[edit]

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

Basically, it's very hard to find good sources that mention this guy non-trivially. I've found an article but I'm pretty sure it copies stuff from this guy's official website's Bio page. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 23:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why didn't you nominate the article for speedy deletion? This guy clearly doesn't meet WP:N, and seems to me to be a perfect candidate for CSD A7. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - because according to A7, "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." The article makes a credible claim of significance. This AfD is here to decide whether it meets WP:N. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 14:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the only claim of importance is for the group, not for the individual. A redirect would be more than adequate. Deb (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 18 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)} 02:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of several questionable articles created by the same user. Promotional and a suspected COI. Deb (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CSD was more appropriate for this promotional piece. There is nothing to assert notability. I have also requested deletion for the same draft. Malunrenta (talk) 07:33, 25 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 to keep. Nominator withdrew. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Thomas Lyons (surgeon)[edit]

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

Seemingly WP:NN academic. Part of a series of promotional articles started by Drewmonda (talk · contribs) related to The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ornella Sizzi Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: Redirect to Tommy_Lyons_(American_football) where he is clearly notable. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 01:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gorn[edit]

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

Mostly a collection of trivia, this seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Covered much better by MemoryAlpha wikia too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:46, 18 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)} 02:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Star Trek races as it appears to the most appropriate place for a redirect and merge. The article can always be recreated if someone tracks down more notability for it. The comment about MemoryAlpha is not relevant to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck my merge vote after reading through the below comments, specifically Jclemens. I am going to hold off on providing another vote. Aoba47 (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Multiple other references in e.g. Starfleet Battles and Starfleet Commander, both of which are derivative works, but financially independent due to licensing arrangements from Paramount's ST:ToS. Note that there are already 3 independent RS'es in the article as of now, and plenty of commentary on Gorn as a fictional element in the 'books' and 'scholar' links listed above. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable race in a notable franchise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSNOTABLE is an argument on the list of bad AfD arguments. Try again. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you reread that comment and note how patronising you sound? I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion without being "told" how to contribute to an AfD. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am just trying to point out that you seem not to know how to express an opinion in an AfD. If that sounds patronizing, well, learn how to express it properly so people who reply to you in AfD will have no reason to sound so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - And here you are being even more patronising. Well done! Frankly, as an experienced editor, you ought to know better (you'll note that I am just as experienced an editor and have just as much experience on AfDs as you do). Note that everyone else here appears to agree with me and not with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's quite a lot of specific design work related to the production of the Gorn in These Are the Voyages. There is also a fair bit of coverage i.e. [7], [8]. Had it just been the appearance in "Arena" then I'd have said to redirect it to there. However, it's now "Arena", the episodes of Enterprise the Kelvin Timeline video game and Star Trek Online. Add to that the Starfleet Battles etc, and it just adds up. But sure, the current article is mostly a series of bullet points. Miyagawa (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - While there do seem to be a number of sources discussing the Gorn, most of them seem to be about the specific episode (and infamous fight scene) from the TOS than the species in general, so I do have a bit of reservation. But, I think the GNG has been met here in the end. Failing a Keep, it should be least be Merged to List of Star Trek races. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "just like the word, it gives me confidence. Gorn. Gorn — it's got a sort of *woody* quality about it. Gorn. Go-o-orn." Err, sorry, that's the wrong show... Anyway, this source informs me that I really must visit Vasquez Rocks sometime, just like everyone else does. That's almost vital, IMO :) Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/query: I'm included to !vote "Keep" on this one on the basis of the appearance of the Gorn in The Big Bang Theory. Do the fiction guidelines say anything about how the appearance of a fictional creation in another (unrelated) work of fiction affects notability?!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but you tempt me to write an essay on it, because this has come up multiple times. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, we have a couple of reliable sources on the article already. At the top of the Gnews search above, we have this, a Cnet article about the creature having achieved the status of an "icon." There are other refs out there, too. And yes the character/race has a whole other life now thanks to the top-rated sitcom, Big Bang. I'm generally skeptical when it comes to fictional things but this passes GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Heavily referenced piece of pop culture which deserves its own article. Artw (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There may be some trivia in the article currently that can be trimmed, but they are covered in lots of RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:52, 24 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 List of Star Trek races. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tellarite[edit]

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

Another Star Trek article that totally fails at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Fear not, this is already covered much better at MemoryAlpha. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Trek races Having worked up the related Enterprise articles that they appeared in to GA, I can say that there isn't much there to expand the article. They're the least known of the significant Star Trek races, probably because they were based on some converted pig masks for TOS. There just isn't going to be much to talk about here, so it might as well be redirected until further sources appear further down the line. You never know, one might turn up prominently in Discovery or something and cause more coverage of the race. Miyagawa (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Star Trek races per Miyagawa's comments. Again, whether or not the subject is covered in MemoryAlpha is irrelevant to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per the arguments above. I don't see a lot of coverage in independent RS, and they appear to have only a small role/place in the star trek universe itself. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sensible option. Not worth a separate article right now. Perhaps in the future. Lourdes 03:12, 25 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. Not seeing a consensus to merge/redirect. It was suggested several times that sufficient sources exist to craft an article which satisfies WP:N and WP:V, in which case deletion would be inappropriate regardless of the article's current state. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xindi (Star Trek)[edit]

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

I love Star Trek, but let's face it - this is fancruft that fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). And MemoryAlpha wiki covers this 10 times better, and is the place most people check for stuff like this, too. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that the article does not currently reflect this (incidentally, I draw this to the attention of Miyagawa and Aoba47, either of whom may be interested in improving this article), but there is a fair amount of academic coverage of the Xindi. There's some analysis of the Xindi in The Influence of Star Trek on Television, Film and Culture and the Politics of Star Trek, for instance. At the very least, it'd be nice to see a merge to List of Star Trek races; the article's not great right now, but it has some potential. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to List of Star Trek races: I believe there are enough sources out there to establish notability for this subject to have its own article. Right now, the article is in very rough shape. I can, however, see and understand this being turned to a redirect and merge to the list (with the redirect being marked as something with potential in case someone finds more information and turns it into a stronger article). The points about MemoryAlpha wiki are not relevant for a discussion on the article's notability (whether or not people use the MemoryAlpha wiki or Wikipedia to find information related to Star Trek is irrelevant to determining whether or not this subject matter is notable or not. There are plenty of quality Star Trek articles on here, so the focus should be kept on whether or not there are enough third-party, reliable sources to justify a single article). I agree that the list is also in pretty poor shape, but there is potential. I am not familiar with this subject, but maybe someday I will look into improving this further. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Star Trek races; no need for a merge as strictly "fancruft". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing about this topic on List of Star Trek races right now is the name and a link to the article so I would imagine so selective merging would be necessary if this is redirected to the list. I am not saying to merge the entire thing, but just parts of it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. While I have no doubt that this could be a proper article, at the moment it's written purely in-universe. Articles related to Enterprise are tricky simply because of the lack of specific books about the series, and therefore a lack of information on the real-world development of the Xindi. There is some limited information from interviews and the like but it's limited. I agree with Aoba47 that someday this could be restored to a full article, when it can be properly developed. Perhaps the books that were released related to the 50th anniversary expand on the Enterprise related information and therefore will help in this regard, but I don't have access to those at the moment. Heck, perhaps the Xindi might turn up in Discovery and get some coverage there. But at the moment there certainly isn't anything I could use to bring it in line with articles like Kazon or Enterprise (NX-01) (in the case of the latter, they put some production information in the back of the first Enterprise novel which is currently the only specific and official Enterprise production material ever put into print, but predates the Xindi by two years). Miyagawa (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep since they are the basis of a major Enterprise through-line, if there is an artcle elsewhere taht covers that sufficiently a redirect may be acceptable. Artw (talk) 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - several of the !votes above state that there are sources that could be used to bring the article up to standard, but note that it's currently a bit cruft-y. But AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP and the article is not so bad as to be a candidate for WP:TNT. It is clear that sources for an article do exist, and the subject even get coverage in tertiary academic sources like this one. Plus there's the fact that they were apparently the focal plot point of an entire season of Enterprise. A clear keep imo. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:47, 24 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 Ryerson University. With Ryerson Theatre School Building also being redirected to the university. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryerson Theatre[edit]

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

This topic is of apparently very low notability, as the only information contained is an address listing, not enough information to even be properly considered a stub. Article has been this this way since created in back 2008. This information perhaps better included in the Ryerson University (though probably not) article, or, just elsewhere on the internet. Retran (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is of adequate notability as there are plenty of sources which discuss it in detail. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial sources for this small venue, just passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I don't see the notability here, either. It's already adequately mentioned in Ryerson University. ~~Delete and redirect there.~~ No objection to leaving the two categories on the redirect page, to aid navigation. Ryerson does have some bold new notable buildings to boast about and quite possibly merit articles -- this doesn't seem to be one of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note, for the record, that we also already have a separate article about Ryerson Theatre School Building — i.e. the building that this theatre is located in. I'm surprised that these two articles have both coexisted this long without somebody merging them — and while that article is abysmally referenced as well, it at least contains more detail than this does. What I'd suggest is that they should either (a) both be redirected to the university as a whole, if not source-improvable, or (b) be merged into one common article at the title Ryerson Theatre School if the sources can be found to salvage it. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I totally missed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry about that. I already knew that it existed because of my recent projects having included still-redlinked CFA/Genie/CSA-nominated actors, some of whom were inevitably Ryerson theatre school alumni, but I completely missed the existence of this article (else they'd already have been merged.) So half a barnstar for each of us, then? (goofy grin) Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merger into Ryerson Theatre School Building is sensible as it's much the same topic. The building has even more scope because of its previous history as a pharmaceutical college. Andrew D. (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bearcat's first option may be best. Merge both into the main article, as even the building seems non-notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryerson University. Although I made a comment above proposing a couple of alternatives to deletion, I didn't express a preference at the time — but I just ran a ProQuest search to see if enough sourcing exists to ref up a quality article about the program itself, and while I got 250 hits they were all just glancing mentions of the school's existence in articles about individual people who graduated from or taught at the school rather than substantive coverage about the school. So going by what I'm able to find, there's just not enough quality referencing available to justify the "merge them both into a new article about the program as a whole" option. No prejudice against that happening in the future if somebody else can find better referencing than I've been able to with the tools available to me. Bearcat (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryerson University. My internet search comes up with nothing more than primary sources and online listings. No justification for a separate article. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ryerson University, and Ryerson Theatre School Building should get the same treatment. Neither one appears to be independently notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This Afd can be closed now. The closing administrator can take into account the suggestion of Fyddlestix too. Lourdes 03:13, 25 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. Consensus is that the subject is not notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Ansley[edit]

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

The article says he is a lawyer in North Carolina, and was an apparently unsuccessful candidate for North Carolina Commissioner of Agriculture in 2008 and an apparently unsuccessful candidate for Wake County District Court Judge in 2014. None of that satisfies the applicable notability guideline, WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 22:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a non-winning candidate for political office is not an inclusion freebie in and of itself — if he had won election as commissioner of agriculture, then there'd be a case for inclusion, but merely being a candidate for that office doesn't cut it, and county judgeships are a local level of office where even if he'd won the seat he still wouldn't get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing if his notability couldn't be credibly referenced to nationalized sources. Our role is to have articles about the holders of notable offices, not every unsuccessful candidate for every political office that exists at all, and there's no preexisting notability for other reasons being shown or sourced here either. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, but he does not meet my standards for notable attorneys. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sufficiently notable. His attempts to be voted in as District Court Judge appear to have been unsucessful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not notable. CreativeMan1 (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability here. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the delete assertions above, including Bearian's. Lourdes 03:15, 25 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/snow keep. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that the result will be anything but keep. WP:1E is clearly inapplicable. Neutrality^talk 04:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evan McMullin[edit]

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

McMullin was a failed presidential candidate who received less than one percent of the vote. He is of one event notability and Wikipedia is not news. His notability, since the election, has been consistantly diminishing. TAG (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, not even a blip on the election radar, and article mostly reads like a campaign advertisement. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I don't think I've ever voted "strong keep" at any AfD, but I imagine there is always a first time. The subject received widespread coverage, amply justifying article. Notability is not temporary, by the way, it does not "fade." If there are POV problems with the article, fix em. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coming fifth in the popular vote for US President is not a non-notable thing. The current article is well referenced - GNG is easily satisfied. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability does not "fade" or "diminish", and he even if it did, he is still getting coverage as a leader in the "Trump Resistance". As Coretheapple said, any POV problems can be sorted out. ^Falling_Gravity 23:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. On what evidence can it be concluded that McMulliin is "consistantly [sic] diminishing"?--John Foxe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "one-event" notability criterion was intended for crime victims, people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and people about whom there is insufficient information to write a meaningful biography other than with respect to the one event. It does not apply to people who have chosen a public life and ran a notable campaign for the presidency of the United States. Putting the matter differently, reasonable readers, present and future, may legitimately expect to find a biography of this person in an encyclopedia, and therefore we should retain one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Was a notable part of the 2016 campaign, not least because he polling suggested had a real chance of winning electoral college votes. However the article could do with being re-written as a lot of it is policy and what he would do if elected. Dunarc (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I originally closed this myself, but was persuaded to re-open the discussion. As has been thoroughly demonstrated above, there is no justification for deleting this article. I especially endorse the rationale provided by Newyorkbrad. Lepricavark (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is no justification for deleting this article. The statement "since the election, has been consistantly diminishing." violates Wikipedia's policy that notability is not temporary meaning that once Evan McMullin reached "significant coverage" (Evan received significant coverage, especially in Utah, after he led in the polls there and from then to the election when he won 733,000 votes and was the subject of speculation as to who would win the state, with this attention stemming from how it would have placed him on the electoral college map) he qualifies for an article and his continued notability is not a factor. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:01, 18 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 19:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikue Kimura[edit]

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

I'm struggling to see evidence of notability. Taking the list of roles on Ja.wiki (and others), she has one main role in Samurai Girl: Real Bout High School and that seems to be it. With the exception of a minor role in Full Metal Panic, the articles for other shows she appeared in don't even list her roles amongst the characters. When the article is claiming she is best known for that FMP role I think it's clear there isn't much hope here. SephyTheThird (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Voice actress who had only a few secondary roles. Fails WP:ACTOR. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:33, 17 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)} 03:02, 18 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)} 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Kyoko is a major/main character in Full Metal Panic (Kaname's best friend), but I don't know about Cole in Kiddy Grade as he is classified as a minor character. Samurai Girl is of course title character, but yeah, I don't see much to write about the actor. As JP wikipedia has a stub level article, I'd tend towards deleting this.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When considering the nomination, Kyoko was the deciding factor. She gets a decent amount of screentime but she doesn't have a plot role and doesnt really do anything different to the other school characters. I would say the series only has three main roles across all 3 existing shows and those are Kaname, Sagara and Tessa (setting aside the bad guys from each individual series). Unless I'm missing something?SephyTheThird (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I forgot about Melissa Mao and Kurz Weber; those are more major ones to share the spotlight with Kaname and Sousuke for the FMP series. But in the FMP Fumoffu series where it focuses on the school, she's a main along with Mizuki and Ren [9]. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that she has roles in some idol anime and promotion called Kira Kira Melody Gakuen and the group Lalalu. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that this singer has some relevance. It would be a shame to lose out on some information that someone might find useful some time down the line. I also don't understand why it needs to be deleted. Stubs can be worked upon. -Arkhaminsanity (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is she as a singer notable? She sang the track on the one anime show she is the title character for, but doesn't have any stuff listed in Oricon for singles [10] or albums. [11] But her media regarding video boxsets and character stuff for FMP and Samurai Girl is a maybe [12] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I'm hesitant to !vote delete in this case as I have a soft-spot for Japanese voice actors, and I acknowledge that it's possible that some offline coverage may exist for her. However, it appears that she only really had one, maybe two notable roles, and significant reliable coverage, at least online, simply does not appear to exist for her. If her role in FMP was more notable, I would have suggested a redirect to the List of Full Metal Panic characters, but no. Another possibility would be a redirect to Samurai Girl: Real Bout High School, but given that show's age and the circumstances, I have doubts on redirecting could be a viable option. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:22, 20 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 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WR Entertainment[edit]

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

Nominated last month by Naturolovehinata5 and exactly today it was confirmed the authoring accounts were linked and this article itself is a clear advertisement, so multiple violations of our policies and multiple searches finding nothing else but announcements and mentions, which is exactly what these sources are; the fact this is barely 2 years old, there's simply not the shown substance for notability and what's listed is simply advertised information. SwisterTwister talk 21:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM, fails WP:NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was about to write an identical nomination for this. It's corporate spam from Single Purpose Accounts that were linked - a group of confirmed sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Weak81). The company does not meet WP:CORP, despite the best efforts of this group of editors. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:05, 18 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)} 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:03, 18 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)} 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and the article is corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam should be viewed from stricter standards than the attempts of a good faith editor to create corporate articles. Fails WP:ORG. Lourdes 03:16, 25 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 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bohm (journalist)[edit]

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

No evidence encyclopedic--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He did get one major profile (WSJ) but otherwise I don't see anything except passing mentions. One good source is not enough to make him pass WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:04, 18 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)} 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising alone, no convincing parts of an article since there's nothing beyond claims of significance. SwisterTwister talk 03:18, 18 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 procedural close. A merge discussion is taking place at Talk:TrueVisions#Proposed merge with United Broadcasting Corporation. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Broadcasting Corporation[edit]

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

This article should be redirect to TrueVisions. It is a same company. Nopphan (talk) 20:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirecting articles is not what AfD is for. If you are not asking to have this page deleted altogether, then I recommend someone procedurally close this discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:07, 18 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)} 03:07, 18 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)} 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, with a merge proposal here. NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 11:49, 18 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 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROLIM[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP, WP:PROMO, and WP:GNG. Non-noteable corp with a promotional tone to the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) self promotional puff piece. Theroadislong (talk) 19:10, 17 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)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find that many reliable and independent sources talking about this company, only the usual press releases. The Crain's Detroit piece stands out a little, but it's only a piece on the founder of the company, not the company itself. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly promotional, bad English and the first edit of single-purpose account. W Nowicki (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Article is corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find this report on Prolim. Unfortunately, I have no idea whether the source is reliable. Delete is the only possibility right now. Lourdes 15:49, 25 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 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotfire[edit]

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

Organisation may not meet notability guidelines. Also seems promotional, with the only references being primary. Also, external links are not appropriate to the article. RoCo^(talk) 18:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:22, 17 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)} 03:10, 18 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)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a recently-started enterprise. The references in the article are poor and my own searches are not finding better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional piece -reads like a company press release not an encyclopedia article. Article created by WP:SPA whose only edits involve this article. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 02:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero results on all possible reliable source searches done by me. It was quite strange to not get even one source though. This Afd can be closed now. Lourdes 17:33, 25 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 05:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quido[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Magnolia677 (talk) 12:22, 18 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)} 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is awful, but the most trivial search of Namibian sites returns multiple references, including entries in The Namibian, The Observer, New Era, The Villager, Informante. Greenman (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with GNG, it seems like there are plenty of sources, that he was nominated for a Namibian Music Award in 2012, he retired in 2014, and came back last year. It also looks like "Die for my city" was on the "local charts", if local means Namibia-wide, then he's met MUSICBIO. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:05, 18 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. A7 and G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Drew Hall[edit]

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

Non-notable doctor, In my opinion it does not pass WP:BIO FITINDIA (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - zero indication of notability. 100% WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Delete as a clear misuse for a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a typical resume.Glendoremus (talk) 04:51, 18 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 19:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sails EP[edit]

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

I can find no substantial coverage of this subject in reliable sources. Note that this recording appears to be different from Black Sails in the Sunset, released the same year, which includes some of the songs but is longer. The title could be redirected to AFI discography, but without sources, there's nothing to merge. Cúchullain ^t/c 17:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Don't delete content, expand upon it. It is clear that this AfD is only to delete the article to make way for the move suggested as Talk:Black Sails (TV series) § Requested move 8 January 2017, which closed in opposition of the vote given by this AfD's nominator. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources for the content, please add them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If article cannot be kept, redirect to AFI (band) as pageviews are well above background noise levels. Clearly of interest to a sizable group of passers-by. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This deletion nomination is wrongly-motivated as part of an attempt to overturn the twice-failed Black Sails (TV series) requested move. The EP article needs expansion, not deletion. Targeting this particular EP is inconsistent with other EPs by this same band, AFI, having articles (Dork, Behind the Times, AFI / Heckle, Fly in the Ointment, A Fire Inside EP, All Hallow's E.P.). —Lowellian (reply) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have sources, please add them. I am unable to find any.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one seems to go under AFD not being cleanup. There must be some external sources for Criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC given the band's level of notoriety. More searching is needed. If we're here in another few months, I might feel differently, but for now, my assumption is expansion is the best path here. South Nashua (talk) 19:33, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 09:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banjob Benjama[edit]

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

Article seems like a hoax. There is no mention of the words 'banjob' or 'benjama' in the single linked article, Mongkut, the supposed father of the person about whom this article was written. Also, the references are not in English. A person with knowledge of Thai (?) should be asked to verify them. RoCo^(talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know that it is a blatant hoax, but there does seem scant reliable evidence to back up this claim. Banjob Benjama's mother, Chao Chom Manda Pae Thamsaroj, appears to have been a consort to Mongkut, but there is no evidence (in English, at any rate) to prove the claim that Banjob was Mongkut's offspring. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: definitely not a hoax. Don't know why it would be presumed so. The two references in the article are to proclamations in the Royal Gazette regarding her death, which is as reliable an official source as can be found from the 19th century. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- For English sources, I expect she'd be covered in Finestone, Jeffrey (2000). A royal album : the children and grandchildren of King Mongkut (Rama IV) of Siam. Bangkok: Loma Holding. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumed it to be a possible hoax due to lack of established notability and English references. Do you think the person in the article holds a historical significance? RoCo^(talk) 07:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure about the subject's historical significance per se, but as a high-ranking member of the royal family, it's very likely that she will have been the subject of coverage in reliable sources, which is enough to satisfy the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, based on presumed coverage in the book mentioned above and other offline sources. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:47, 18 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)} 03:16, 18 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)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing vote to keep based on the discovery of the equivalent article at th.wiki: th:พระเจ้าบรมวงศ์เธอ พระองค์เจ้าบัญจบเบญจมา. Google translate does an incredibly poor job of translating Thai, but this is clearly the same person, and significant sources are provided at the Thai article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Nominator withdrawal. Changing opinion after discovery of equivalent article, as stated above. Not a hoax. RoCo^(talk) 09:14, 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 Celtic Woman. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny World Tour (Celtic Woman)[edit]

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

No claim in article of meeting the notability guidelines, no sources at all, let alone sources showing notability. Good faith Google search not turning up sources for notability. PROD contested without addressing issues, so here we are. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for substantially the same reasons as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Songs from the Heart Tour, another Celtic Woman tour article: No indication of notability, and even worse sourcing (the SftH page at least cited the band's own web page). This level of detail is unnecessary and in appropriate; and the tour itself can be covered in a couple sentences on the Celtic Woman page. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 17 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)} 03:16, 18 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)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: there is really nothing notable or useful here, so redirect to the Tours section of Celtic Woman. ww2censor (talk) 17:29, 21 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 19:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatteras Financial Corp[edit]

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

None of this establishes actual independent notability and substance since it's simply a business listing as the sole sources are their own business listings, nothing better was found My hat's unsurprising for such a trivial company. Our policies are clear about company advertising and this one is no different. SwisterTwister talk 16:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The history of this article shows a couple of points when WP:PROD was discussed, initially rejected because of the firm's stock market listing. The sources remained insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH though, and my searches have been finding mere routine announcements. But most significantly, there was an April 2016 announcement that Annaly Capital Management, Inc were acquiring Hatteras Financial Corp ([13] – via HighBeam (subscription required) ). This is presumably why previous primary references are now dead links. A redirect is possible, but I am not seeing evidence that this firm met the notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 21:17, 17 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)} 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surprisingly fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH which is unusual given it has (had) a NYSE listing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:16, 18 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. The rename can be proposed on the talk. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 15:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berman Medical Library[edit]

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

I was actually surprised at the dearth of public sourcing about this library. Other than trivial mentions, I found no in-depth coverage on the search engines from independent reliable sources. Should probably be a redirect, but an editor continues to revert it back to this poorly-referenced stub article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a substantive 2015 article about the library and its medical history museum, from the Jerusalem Post: "Combining old and new to teach medical students: The Hebrew University’s medical library is consolidating digital data with old, rare books and medical equipment that continue to educate". Searches also turn up some brief references about the 1919 founding and subsequent support of this library by Dr. Julius Jarcho: [14][15][16][17] Not sure yet if there will be enough here to warrant a separate article, but this can at least provide some additional sourced information to add to the redirect target, presumably Hebrew University of Jerusalem#Libraries. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nice find, Arxiloxos, if the eventual consensus is to keep, the article's name should be changed, as per your reference to the "Muriel and Philip Berman Medical Library". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Jerusalem Post article is quite deep and all other scattered mentioned are enough in my opinion to let it stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What JP article? The article currently has no references. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This one: [18]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keyed "Medical Library" + "Hebrew University" into a proquest newspapers archive search, and turned up copious coverage, not lacking in sic transit gloria mundi irony. There are articles about the collection itself in major newspapers (I added only a couple,) about the building, and the naming donations. I first added a couple of articles that turned up when I searched on the articles title. Then ran this search and found more than I can add now. The Herald Trib and lots of other papers covered this library as it developed in the 1930s. Also lots in the Jewish papers and in more in the Allentown and other PA papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article has been expanded, references provided. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:20, 18 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 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Waldron[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NAUTHOR and the sources do not show that she meets WP:GNG and could not find sufficient sources elsewhere to prove notability. One of the sources cited is a self written article and the other is a local promo; I could find nothing about her being an ambassador for RUOK. Domdeparis (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an interview with her on Perth Tonight (a radio show on 6PR) where she talks about being an RUOK Ambassador https://soundcloud.com/suzanne-waldron/interview-with-perth-tonight-on-ruokday Katerg (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you have any reliable secondary sources? The only people that I could find mentioned as "ambassadors" are on this page People behind us]. She seems to be one of the many "community ambassadors" see her mentioned on this page which I presume is a volunteer role. The way the article is worded suggests that she is is on the same level as Hugh Jackman etc. It's a great thing to do but I don't think that being a local volunteer makes her notable enough for Wikipedia. ~~It looks rather like this WP article is really a puff piece being written as a promo aide for her activity as a motivational speaker~~ i forgot to WP:AGF my apologies... Domdeparis (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is some stuff out there but not enough IRS I think. Undernotable at this time rather than nonnotable. Perhasp TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real claim to notability here, RUOK ambassador is definitely not a claim to notability. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. No real claim to notability, and fails WP:SIGCOV. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more citations and information about her activities that make her notable. Katerg (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but wonder if unconscious sexism is at play here. I have seen plenty of articles about men who are less/equally notable. For example, my colleague David Fono, who despite having less articles written about him and not even having a book published, was not slapped with a deletion at any point. See also http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/ Katerg (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Katerg: I have rewritten the article, but I am really struggling to find reliable secondary references. Please have a look at the article, which has now been wikified. If it looked like this initially it would have been less likely to attract negative attention. I cannot comment on any unconscious sexism, but I can state that Wikipedia inherently suffers from systemic bias, that is, because the notability and verifiability policies rely on secondary references it relies on what other people have researched and written about a subject, and yes there is bias in the world, which then flows through to wikipedia. Can you find any more secondary references, to allow more depth and scope to the article. Yes, as it stands David Fono may well be deleted. I have not looked further at it. I also refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and conversely WP:NEXIST. I would like to keep this article, but it is very difficult to find material to make the case. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoziwe! Katerg (talk) 08:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Katerg: I totally refute any accusations of sexism conscious or unconscious. Your suggestion that this deletion nomination is motivated by sexism comes under Accusing others of bad faith you might want to read what the guidelines say about that and also read this No personal attacks. It is very easy to accuse editors of being sexist rather than trying to write articles that are acceptable and find sources that prove that the subject is notable. If you need help understanding what has to be done read the GNG it states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If you are claiming that the subject of the article is notable as a speaker or a coach or an author you have to find sources that back this up. She sounds like a worthy person who is out there doing her job and helping people, but there are literally billions of people doing the same thing but they do not all merit a page in Wikipedia that is what social media is for. If she wants to tell her story, she can use facebook, twitter, blogs and books, they are all there for that, but here we are talking about notable subjects as per the WP definition. You admit having created a page about one of your colleagues, this is considered as WP:COI editing and you should have really made a disclosure about your relationship. I totally agree with you the subject does not seem at all notable and his page does not have its place on Wikipedia. I will nominate that article for deletion as well not because he is a man or a woman but just because the subject is not notable. If you want to close the gender gap (which I do not deny at all) I would suggest writing articles about notable subjects, there are just as many notable women as men out there, but writing about a non notable woman and accusing everyone of being sexist if they question the notability is not helping the cause at all. Domdeparis (talk) 11:08, 23 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 12:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E-Informatica Software Engineering Journal[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG I can find no widespread coverage of the journal in reliable sources independent of the subject. Theroadislong (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed in Scopus, a reliable source satisfies WP:NJournals, an essay that explains why this satisfies WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it listed at their website? [19] Theroadislong (talk) 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the middle of the page, "Scopus Source List". I used to link directly to that Excel file, until I noticed that the specific URL of the file changes when they update it and the old one goes dead. I don't like to put instructions in a reference ("click this or that"), and don't see a good way to cite this otherwise. I cannot link the journal page in Scopus either, as my access goes through a "gate", so that URL works only for me (most people who have access will be in a similar situation). It's clumsy, I admit... --Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, my iMac crashed opening the document but I did see it eventually! I'll see if there is a better secondary source. Theroadislong (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Randykitty. Passes WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NJOURNALS - it is in "Scopus source list" [20] ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NJOURNALS and arguments above, I guess we can snow keep and close this now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:38, 21 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. Vanamonde (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavya Shinde[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG: I can't find anything in reliable source to support/verify his role in any tv show or film listed in the article and also failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 14:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Unsourced WP:BLP, certainly an autobiography. --Drm310 (talk) 14:47, 17 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)} 03:19, 18 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)} 03:19, 18 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 19:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ingram[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. No individual coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep = singer for two notable bands. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording is "a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Prominence would imply meeting GNG. This subject does not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because you are not familiar with the subject it does not mean that it should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about my knowledge, but complete lack of sources on the subject. In other words, jut because you can't find sources for the subject doesn't mean we should keep it. I trust that the closing admin will see the complete lack of argument on your part. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand it's a good faith nomination. However, WP:NMUSIC#6 is not interpreted the way you believe it is. Prominence absolutely does not imply GNG. See the note provided in NMUSIC#6 to understand what is prominence. To be a choir singer: 'not prominent'. To be a lead singer: 'prominent'. As already mentioned by Bearian, Ingram has been a prominent member of two notable bands. I haven't ever met him but can say his prominence comes out clearly in the coverage he has received in the sources belonging to the genre he sings in. You might consider withdrawing the nomination for now. Thanks. Lourdes 16:16, 25 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CounterMedia Trust[edit]

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

This company does not meet WP:NORG as it is known only as owning the People's Archive of Rural India. There is nothing in the article that suggests the company is notable above and beyond that and notability is not inherited. In the 8 sources cited 3 do not mention the Trust at all but talk about the Archive and the other 5 talk about the Archive and only mention in passing that it is owned by the Trust. Here are the different mentions of the Trust in the sources

The site is run by The CounterMedia Trust.
it is owned by the CounterMedia Trust, registered in 2011
says the website which is run by The CounterMedia Trust.
It will be registered in the name of a trust we have formed for this purpose, the Counter Media Trust.
The site is run by the CounterMedia Trust, which aims to rebuild the people-centered traditions of Indian journalism.

The remainder of the articles talk exclusively about the Archive. Domdeparis (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "3 do not mention the Trust at all but talk about the Archive" -- This is because the citations refer to the inauguration of PARI, CounterMedia Trust's key project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alberun (talk • contribs) 11:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Alberun: This is exactly what I am trying to say. The sources are relevant to the PARI but not to the Trust itself. It is not because the PARI is notable that everything connected to it is (including the Trust that owns it). To prove notability of the trust you have to find in depth secondary sources sources that mention the trust and so prove its notability. Please read WP:NORG. Domdeparis (talk) 14:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PARI is notable and has a lot of coverage, however the trust has no independent notability and coverage. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:15, 23 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. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Van Badham[edit]

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

There's a lot of references in the article but I keep hitting on dead ends. There are wordpress blogs, student newspapers a primary source interview. There does not appear to be enough out there to justify an article on this person, not as a journalist, author, or playwright. There's been a lot of vandalism in the article's past I see but the afd has nothing to do with that, I found this by the RecentChanges link. ValarianB (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose delete AiasBigAndLittle (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)I'm not sure whether the above case for deletion is primarily citation-based or notability-based. I don't think either case has substance, in that the subject is one of Australia's most prominent playwrights under 50 (see the reference to the NSW Premier's Literary Awards, links to arts organisations, newspaper articles, university sites included in the article - most of which I am having no trouble accessing) and is also a regular columnist in The Guardian (the link to her Guardian profile appears to be intact too). This should satisfy even the most rigorous notability criteria. I will do a thorough audit of the sources, but as I said, most of them seem to be intact, and of high quality/impact, not just blogs etc. AiasBigAndLittle (talk) 22:15, 17 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)} 03:21, 18 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)} 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose delete~~ Further to above - references have now been cleaned up and brought up-to-date.AiasBigAndLittle (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate !vote struck. Primefac (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete Van Badham is one of those people who always tends to be part of a television panel that I inadvertently find myself watching. Add to that her regular column in the Guardian, her plays being performed and her other contributions to the media, I would certainly oppose any attempt to delete the article. --Roisterer (talk) 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on first pass there seems to be more than enough, NEXISTS, to pass GNG. Even if some of the current article references are below standard there would appear to be plenty more to pick from to support an even more solid article. The article could now do with a section or paragraphs on the Steve Price matter which alone almost warrants its own article given the main stream and other press coverage it has had. Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This deletion request appears ill-researched. A cursory Google news search shows abundant national & international media coverage of her activities just in 2016, from being called "hysterical" on a panel television show to supporting Clinton. There's also references to her work as a playwright eg [21] and multiple reviews in the British press of UK productions of her play Camarilla eg [22],[23] Her bio here in PAJ is useful: [24]. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sorry if it appears that way, but I did look into this person before trying for a deletion. Your first link does not work, 2 and 3 would perhaps make the play notable, and the last one appears to be a press release. ValarianB (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick web search indicates that Badham has a strong national and international profile as a playwright and a strong national profile (in Australia) as a journalist and commentator. At the time of writing, the references appear to be in good health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.148.176.197 (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but when the editor in chief of the Guardian Australia isn't notable enough to have an article, I don't see how a columnist who writes a few plays deserves an article. An old high school teacher of mine writes plays and has been involved in politics, even running as a candidate on a couple of occasions. Does he deserve an article? As awesome as this teacher is, no he doesn't. Because although he is regarded locally as a good director and play-writer, he doesn't have the notability.

One could argue the same case that people like Andrew Bolt doesn't warrant an article - but the difference is that he hosts his own television show, which is a whole lot different then occasionally appearing on Q&A on the ABC. We go lower, Steve Price (Broadcaster), he's an obnoxious arse, but he does host his own radio show and is a weekly co-host on The Project and that warrants him his own article. Go lower down the totem pole again, we have Miranda Devine; but again, she has done more in the media field then just write columns - she at one stage hosted her own radio show on 2GB.

I am of course referring to right-wing commentators here, but anyone who has a Wikipedia article, left or right, has one because they do more then just write opinion pieces on a weekly basis, or they are in the Order of Australia, they have hosted their own radio or television shows, or are in some other way notable. Writing plays doesn't pass the sniff test unless if said plays are notable as all hell, and none of the plays she's written are highly notable. 121.219.8.29 (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

note - above editor's only contribution to wiki is to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, the nominator is correct. I took a look through the references in the article, quite a few of them were dead links, more still were citing her own articles as opposed to third party sources. Removing these references, all you have are a few reviews for a few of her plays and I don't think that is enough to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geelongite (talk • contribs) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is most well known as a sometimes controversial commentator/public intellectual in Australia, which is not really covered in the article. I don't think she is particularly notable as a playright, her plays aren't really performed by professional companies at least in Australia.Boneymau (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not support an assertion of a, quote controversial commentator/public intellectual though. There has to be observable proof. ValarianB (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator of multiple notable works. Also has good coverage about her.

di Fonzo, Benito (6 June 2008), "Extreme makeover", Sydney Morning Herald is a mixture of a review of Poster Girl and a bio piece about Badham.

Smith, Gary (31 October 2006), "Calling to write emotive theatre", Daily Telegraph is a mixture of a review of Camarilla and a bio piece about Badham.

Scott, Robert Dawson (13 August 2003), "Edinburgh theatre - First night - Edinburgh Festival.", The Times - review of Camarilla

Gardner, Lyn (5 August 2003), "Review - Theatre - Camarilla - C Venue 3/5", The Guardian - review of Camarilla

Mullaney, Andrea (5 August 2003), "Walk-out fury over Afghan War satire", Evening News - Scotland - news article focussing on Camarilla

Blake, Jason (22 June 2008), "Poster Girl", Sun Herald - review of Poster Girl

Dunne, Stephen (22 June 2008), "Too nice - when naughty was needed", The Sydney Morning Herald - review of Poster Girl

Neill, Rosemary (17 June 2006), "STAGE FRIGHT - PLAY SCHOOL - Australia's leading playwrights on the drama drought", The Australian - a lot of bio about Badham.

It goes on. more than enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, wow! why is this even here? afd is not cleanup, Badham is clearly notable, having received Queensland Premier's Literary Award, New South Wales Premier's Literary Award, and Western Australian Premier's Book Award so meets WP:ANYBIO ie. "1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." (but coola they're only ozzie awards....GGGRRRRR) (also each of the plays that received one of these awards could, with a couple of reviews, be broken out to their own articles), (these awards were listed in the article before this afd was created so the question again, why is this here:)), also with Duffbeerforme's list of reviews/articles above Badham easily meets notability requirements. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 26 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) 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vtiger CRM[edit]

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

Fails criteria for notability GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Has been tagged for additional citations since July 2015. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising with equally advertising sources. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Wikipedia is not a product brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source in any reliable sources. Forget WP:CORPDEPTH, some reports in sources like even PC Quest almost seemed of the click bait variety. This is an appropriate deletion candidate. Lourdes 17:38, 25 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YetiForce CRM[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search for sources, I was unable to find enough significant reliable coverage for this software. While there are several hits online for the program, most are from unreliable sources such as self-publishing sources, blogs or web forums; the closest I could find to what I could consider as sources are tutorials on how to install it, although their value as a reliable source for establishing notability is questionable. I couldn't actually find any source other than tutorials which specifically discuss the software. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails criteria for notability WP:GNG
Delete as clear advertising and that's all why it exists. SwisterTwister talk 18:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious advertising and apparent conflict of interest. Nom was contacted by an individual who appears to be affiliated with the company. Basic google search of their name backs this up.[25]. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. SephyTheThird (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SephyTheThird: In response, I have left a message on his talk page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy spam delete. Block WP:SPA creator for spam. Move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:58, 21 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) 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhadeb Halder[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:AUTHOR Siuenti (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Siuenti (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. He may be locally known, but he's not had time to become notable. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little known poet. I even tried regional sources. Tough luck. Fails GNG/SNG/BASIC. Lourdes 17:41, 25 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 12:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Orloff[edit]

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

Poor sourcing. Unreliable sources. Questionable notability. Famous _dog (c) 12:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Best-selling author, many indications of notability, apparently meets the GNG. Cursory nomination statement simply makes no case. Article is suboptimal but makes a sufficient case for notability .The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tone is little bit promotional here and there, and like most articles it could stand some editing, but as Hullaballoo says, her notability as an author is demonstrated by what's already there. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hullaballoo. No case for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 02:03, 18 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)} 03:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:23, 18 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 because no reason is specified. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 13:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Babangida Rumah[edit]

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

Reason Ahmed Bachaka (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:24, 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 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RateGain[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage of this organisation that would meet WP:CORP. It's also notable that the article history is fairly full of accounts such as User:Marketing TeamRG, User:RG Marketing and User:Team RateGain, all clearly with a significant COI. With only one exception, all references are either to the company's own website, social media, youtube, non-RS, HTTP 404 or DNS lookup failures. GoldenRing (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems to be a clear case of a non-notable company trying to create a promotional "autobiography" out of insufficient sources. Deli nk (talk) 14:59, 17 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)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and as stated previously, this article is corporate spam. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is corporate spam right now. But there are at least two sources that discuss the company in-depth. Economic Times and CNBC. What do the delete !voters think of these? Lourdes 17:45, 25 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 21:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SchilliX[edit]

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

Obsolete distribution of OpenSolaris (itself deprecated), later based on Illumos. As noted on [26], release 0.2 consisted of just three minor patches. The latest announcement is from 2010. No significant news coverage outside the Solaris community. Ysangkok (talk) 10:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try.... the latest public activities are rather from Christmas 2016. The latest published release is 0.8 and there are people in the project who of course use the latest state. BTW: SchilliX fixed many problems that are still in Illumos. Schily (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: "It's obsolete" is not a valid reason for deletion. Historical articles are not only accepted, but encouraged on Wikipedia; notability is not temporary. Build your deletion nominations on the notability guideline instead. -- intgr [talk] 12:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete - RS coverage is minimal, and not evidenced; nor is it clear this was ever notable. I'm willing to be convinced, but ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete I do not see notability. This is a one-man project with no audience. Just look at the source code repository: [27]... The previous deletion discussion was flawed. This project does not compare to major Linux distributions, but to some obscure one such as UltraPenguin (Sun port of Linux 2.2 kernel for UltraSPARC). Because nobody uses it. It never was notable in the first place. This is not like Knoppix which came with magazines to an audience of thousands of users until Ubuntu and other distributions made their installers live-CDs, making Knoppix largely obsolete. The importance of SchilliX is comparable to UltraPenguin instead - an obscure footnote to OpenSolaris, nothing more. Make an entry in List of computer technology code names and delete the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.14.1.219 (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep SchilliX is not like an average distro, it is the first OpenSolaris based distro and it was the trailblazer for other distros by:

identifying missing and non-redistributable code needed to boot/run the system
implementing OSS replacement code for the missing and non-redistributable parts
verifying that the so created system is usable
documenting the state by listing OpenSource parts, Closed source but redistributable parts and missing or non-redistributable parts
asking Sun Microsystems to open more code to make the act of creating an OpenSolaris based distro easier

Before SchilliX existed, Sun Microsystems believed that the published Source Code cannot be used to create a distro without the help from Sun Microsystems. The article thus is important for the OpenSolaris lifetime. The article should be enhanced to include a documentation for these facts. 2003:8C:4F3B:D500:213:D3FF:FE4E:7509 (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it might be a good thing, but no-one seems to have written anything about it. Fails WP:GNG. Flat Out (talk) 03:30, 25 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, salt for a year. This is the third different person with this name. One from the 2007 versions, one from the 2013 and a different one now. . - GB fan 10:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lee[edit]

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

According to the logs for this article it has been speedily deleted seven times and it continues to be recreated. Subject does not meet GNG or the relevant notability guidelines for musicians. I suggest deleting and salting this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and Salt. I don't really see the need for this discussion: there is nothing of substance in the article. Had it been tagged I would have deleted/salted myself, but I prefer to have two pairs of eyes on such situations if possible, so I have tagged instead. Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may not see the need for this discussion, but I made it clear in the nomination that I think the article should be salted and I gave my rationale for it. There was no other way for me, as a non-admin, to achieve this. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:50, 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 21:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tripfez[edit]

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

Clear advertisement with only published adn republished business announcements, listings, trivial passing mentions, quotes and similar, even going as far to contain sources that are clear in PR-focused sections of the select publications, none of which compromise in our policies, including ones that state against advertising. Searches found pages and pages of published and republished PR announcements, which is alone to not even satisfy the simplest suggestive guidelines, which themselves state "Sources must be independent, significant and substantial and not simple business announcements and mentions" and there's clear COI here. SwisterTwister talk 07:54, 17 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)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO; this is advertorial content on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly advertising, and the citation overkill isn't helping the case for notability. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way way WP:TOOSOON. If you look at the sources carefully, most of them are not exactly what we call RS, and some of them are simply quotes by the founder. Honestly, this looks like an undisclosed paid editing job - if it is then the company should be advised that it is not a wise choice to do it. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BBC and Forbes cover this company quite comprehensively. I'd like to hear the comments of the delete !voters on these sources. Lourdes 17:56, 25 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South of Marion, Leichhardt[edit]

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

No evidence this actually exists. De-prodded by User:Atlantic306. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment only deprodded because it had been prodded and deprodded before as only one prod is allowed in the lifetime of an article as per WP:PROD. Not seeing any evidence on google for this neighbourhood. Atlantic306 (talk) 07:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a WP:MADEUP concept by the article creator. Google certainly returns no evidence that the term "SoMa2040" is used by anyone for anything outside of this article and Wikipedia mirrors [28] Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Still making up my mind~~ There are significant multiple reliable references available for the Italian heritage, culture and Forum specifically for Leichhardt, primary, secondary, and tertiary in nature. There are a very small number of secondary/tertiary (non wikimirror) references of unknown reliability but non reason to doubt good faith to South of Marion. I cannot find any reference to any form of soma2040. 2040 is the post/zip code for Leichhardt. There seems to be more than sufficient to move/rename and expand this article to a Little Italy, Sydney, see [29], as a companion article to Little Italy, Melbourne. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure this unrelated literal hoax is the place to try to shoehorn that. The Italian heritage is mentioned in Leichhardt, New South Wales and Norton Street, Leichhardt and I don't see the reliable sources for more than that: in any case this is not the article for that. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct. My suggestion should have a life of its own and ride on its own merits if it can. Changing my opinion to delete. Aoziwe (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, regardless of its existence it is probably not notable. That its alleged claim to fame is a topic for which we currently have no article speaks volumes about its legacy... or lack thereof. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, any useful content can be incorporated into Leichhardt, New South Wales. IgnorantArmies (talk) 10:12, 21 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. postdlf (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemistry mnemonics[edit]

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

I don't believe this article serves any encyclopaedic purpose. Therefore, I feel that it fits under WP:What Wikipedia is not.

Specifically, there are no particular criteria for a mnemonic's inclusion in this list. Of course, this is a problem common to many lists (such as those of slang and industry-specific terms). However, in this case, I think that there is no way of establishing a given mnemonic's notability or lack thereof. Of course, the concept of a mnemonic is notable in and of itself, but adequately covered in its own article.

Furthermore, there do not appear to be any third-party sources available that distinguish between commonly used mnemonics and those that have been suggested in pages referenced by this article but are otherwise unused. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:40, 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)} 05:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems odd and a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO, but we have a LOT of these things, including a science subcat, at Category:Mnemonics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - our core readership of students will almost certainly search for this and expect that we have it. It is also probably notable because secondary school textbooks always cover such mnemonics. I had an interview to be a science teaching fellow just last night, and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'd use this article in a lesson plan. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN while the nomination is WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree (as nominator) that the topic passes WP:LISTN. I don't believe any of the sources establish notability for chemistry mnemonics over mnemonics as a whole. There are already more than enough examples at mnemonic. Triptothecottage (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter." A mnemonic is clearly a teaching aid, so in my mind, not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, the mnemonics that aren't referenced, smack of original research (and not very good at that).Glendoremus (talk) 05:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With a few easy clicks, I cut out a bunch of totally unsourced lines. "How easy was that?" - chemist and cook Ina Garten. Ordinary editing can fix the problems identified, so total chemical explosion is unwarranted. Bearian (talk) 13:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:LISTN These are well known and have value. Chemistry mnemonics are widely covered in reliable sources. Smartyllama (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smartyllama. And an article like this needs a lot of attention because of homemade mnemonics... Christian75 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It does serve an encyclopedic purpose: it is a collection of chemical mnemonics, which should clearly be valuable knowledge in the field of chemistry. A list needs to be well-defined, and I see nothing ill-defined about what a mnemonic is. These mnemonics also appear widely in standard textbooks. —Lowellian (reply) 12:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about this one. I have been a chemistry educator for over 50 years and I have never heard of any of them, but perhaps they are used in secondary schools. However, I was a university chemistry academic with a keen interest in chemical education. If this article is to be kept, then every entry needs a source that shows the item is in wide use, otherwise wikipedia will be spreading the use of a mnemonic that someone has just invented. If they do appear widely in standard textbooks, as the previous comment suggests, then they should be used as sources. If I have to make a decision, I come down on the side of saying that this article should not be on wikipedia. The other articles in the category seem to match our criteria better than this massive list. --Bduke (Discussion) 19:40, 22 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Egbring-Kahn[edit]

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

Delete: this illiterate stub was AFDed once and closed and no consensus. Intolerable result which must be rectified. Complete lack of community interest confirms non-notability. Quis separabit? 04:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Actually, the previous AfD discussion had two participants other than from the nominator, but after two relistings, the overall input was inadequate for a consensus to be determined. This counters the notion of "Complete lack of community interest confirms non-notability" stated in the nomination herein. Furthermore, lack of input at AfD discussions has no bearing whatsoever upon whether or not a topic is notable. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: actually the previous AfD discussion had one trivial comment and one keep vote. I meant no insult to @User:Northamerica1000's adjudication. I presumed there were at least a couple or so relistings, but the lack of more responses indicate to me at any rate a strong lack of community interest. The question of whether an AFD should be closed as "no consensus" if there is one keep vote and one delete vote varies depending on circumstances and admins, so perhaps there should be a more consistent approach. But, anyway, leaving this illiterate stub is just something that I feel strongly against. It should be sent back to the article creator's sandbox for improvement. Quis separabit? 05:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion as yet on notability, but must point out that most of the claimed illiteracy could be fixed simply by moving a date, which I have done. It takes far less effort to fix such things than to whinge about them. The phrase "the Grandma" should also be changed to either "the grandma" or "Grandma". Maybe the nominator would like to make that choice? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[redacted]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear delete as both this and her listed filmography clearly show minor works and nothing amounting to actual substance since her works are so few, there's simply nothing else because there's no significance as an actress, and given she was only a rarely occasional actress, that's all there is. SwisterTwister talk 04:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Unscintillating -- better editors than you have tried to get me blackballed. I very rarely renominate articles which survive AFDs. Since 2005, I can't remember doing so more than a handful of times, most recently Chris Nelson (director) and only when, as in this case and the Nelson case, I felt strongly (see IAR and BOLD). Incidentally, one (1) keep vote and one (1) delete vote after several relistings indicate a serious lack of community interest and the AFD should have succeeded.

So while you try to blame and shame the wrong editor "to end re-nominations by the same editor" -- something which, as I said, I have done maybe a handful of times to my recollection since 2005 -- which is why I didn't even know about WP:BEFORE -- perhaps you should concentrate on those who are genuinely abusing the procedures and protocols. Please include this reply in your "evidence file". Quis separabit? 18:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm redacting my comment because the purpose was a goal of improving the quality of AfD nominations. I don't plan to further respond in this AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 15:11, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the 7-paragraph profile about her in 26 February 2011 Berliner Morgenpost, which I cited in the prior AfD [30], plus her long list of credits as noted in Agathoclea's keep !vote. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per what I said last time. Sad thing is that the actress was at her prime a stage actress, therefore sources about the bulk of her work will be print, not online. Agathoclea (talk) 12:22, 25 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. with no prejudice against speedy re-nomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The ITV Seven[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since 2008. I know that isn't a valid reason to delete an article, but trying to verify some recent changes I could hardly find any reliable sources on it. What I could find was trivial mentions in passing. If I couldn't find any reliable sourcing, and if nobody has found any reliable sourcing since 2008, then that is a rather strong indication that this programme segment fails WP:GNG. Sjö (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some reliable sourcing simply by clicking on the word "books" above. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 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]

Simple solution - rename article to ITV Racing as information about the show has been inserted. Echo2017a (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly an article on ITV's coverage of horse racing is notable. In its previous incarnation it was known as ITV Seven, but now that ITV have won the rights back from Channel 4 Racing the article should maybe be renamed ITV Racing, as that seems to be how ITV have rebranded their coverage. I have added some sources that mention the old ITV Seven format.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:54, 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 merge to Robin Banerjee. There is clear consensus that this should not exist as a stand-alone article. Beyond that, opinion is pretty evenly split between redirect, merge, and delete, with no particularly compelling argument to make one of those stand out.

Numerically, there's a slight leaning towards delete, but I'm going to call this a merge, in deference to WP:ATD. Perhaps not everything needs to be merged, but I'll leave that up to whoever performs the merge. Leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle Robin's Museum[edit]

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

Non-notable musem. Virtually zero hits on the search engines (except to this Wikipage). Current sourcing consists of... well, doesn't exist, actually. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect~~ ~~to Robin Banerjee, on the basis organisations have a higher notability threhold than people. Though~~ there is this article in The Telegraph (India) reporting the announcement of the creation of the museum, ~~I don't think that is enough to support a separate Wikipedia article.~~ Sionk (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my !vote to 'Keep' on the basis of the additional convincing sources found by AnjanBorah, in particular the lengthy article in The Hindu, smaller piece in The Sentinel and The Assam Travel Guide entry (which demonstrates the museum is a recognised tourist attraction). The one problem that will need resolving is the common name for the museum, but rather than repeatedly moving the page while this discussion is going on, it's a problem that can be addressed later. Sufficient reliable secondary coverage to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because Wikipedia is not based on # of search engine hits. It is a world encyclopedia with the objective to provide information on many subjects irrespective of whether the topic is highest or least rated on internet or has no electronic media coverage. There are multiple articles written about places lesser know to the world in general, e.g., Hum in Croatia however, that doesn't take away the credibility of listing it with a dedicated Wikipedia page. The page might be tagged as stub if appears too short (believe, that should've been done at the first place to encourage more edits to bring it to Wiki standards instead of marking it for deletion without any due diligence) however, in its current form and structure, the page is adequately informative. The updated page with sources shows that the place has been mentioned from time to time on various print media, including this article in The Hindu newspaper (a premier Indian broadsheet newspaper) and thus known (if not popular) to people in that geographic area. AnjanBorah (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Robin Banerjee. I don't think there is enough to warrant an article about this "museum", but a paragraph in Robin Banerjee would be appropriate. Merge instead of just redirect because there is info about the museum here that is not in the target article. MB 04:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A small personal collection, of no encyclopedic concern. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I concur this is simply a localized place, and there's nothing to suggest genuine substance for independent notability or that there exists signs of better. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the museum is currently being reconstructed to make it appealing to a wider audience and will be reopened for public viewing as per this latest article, dated August 2016. Notability can be inferred from the various sources cited on the page (including articles from national broadsheet newspapers), in addition to the links provided here. Furthermore, the biographical page on Robin Banerjee can't be clubbed with this place which is now getting reconstructed to become a tourist attraction, unbeknown to you, but not to the citizens of the region, else there wouldn't have been any print media coverage. And the argument that it is a small collection is as insubstantial as the # of search engine hits on the basis of which this deletion has been proposed by the initiator in the first place. Collection how big or small or the # of search engine hits can't be a determining factor to consider eligibility of a page when it doesn't violate any wikipedia policies. If the editors feel that only topics that have high media coverage or relate to places of grandeur are fit to be on wikipedia then clearly, the whole concept of constructive editing has fallen apart. I would still reemphasise that the criterion for nominating the article for deletion just based on search engine hits is illegitimate to begin with, and hence, the page should be reinstated so that with time more information from various other sources could be incorporated so that it evolves in the due course. AnjanBorah (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out your second 'Keep' vote because, while you are welcome to comment as many times as you like in a discussion, you should only 'vote' once. Sionk (talk) 23:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robin_Banerjee#Uncle_Robin.27s_Museum or delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide to have an article on every travel attraction. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sionk for the pointer, noted. I stand by my proposition to retain this article as the place has been mentioned in different newspapers, sufficient to support it as an independent article, thereby the 'not-notable' as stated by Sportsfan 1234 can be unambiguously ruled out. The argument that the place can't have a separate article based on # of search engine hits can't be a premise for any conclusion, Wikipedia can include topics supported with multiple sources irrespective of electronic or print media coverage. The Telegraph article that you mentioned, states preservation of this site by DoNER Ministry, Govt. of India in, besides reconstruction of the building as per the other The Sentinel article stated earlier. The page warrants enough sources to stand as an independent write-up, thus should be retained.
K.e.coffman, point is not to promote Wikipedia as a Travel Guide, clearly it isn't, but a place that has been taken up by Government Ministry for preservation, besides current reconstruction to open it up for general public and that's being written about in various newspapers (enough sources here and on the relevant page), it is worthy enough to be an independent article. National broadsheet newspapers - The Telegraph, The Hindu, in addition to The Assam Travel Guide entry qualify the article to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP norms as stated by Sionk. AnjanBorah (talk) 02:01, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Robin Banerjee. The articles cited lean heavily on the notability of Banerjee as owner/founder. The museum on its own has little or no notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Robin Banerjee, with no prejudice to an independent article at some future date if museum thrives and attracts coverage. At present, the coverage has been minor, sufficient to make WP:PRESERVE a significan tfactor, but I think that a redirect preserving the sources is the most efficient way to retain the useful information.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:56, 20 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NCRHA Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships Most Valuable Player[edit]

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

No sources or external links. No indication of notability. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and also delete NCRHA Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships Most Valuable Goaltender and NCRHA Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships Playmaker for the same reason. Clearly all trivial sportscruft with no notability Not even verifiable. Could be completely made up for all I can tell (although it probably isn't). --DanielRigal (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I note that even the organization's web site (https://ncrha.org/) doesn't bother keeping lists of these awards. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:03, 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 delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lido Water Park[edit]

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

Non-notable public attraction that fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Most of the hits I get for it are for a water park in Greece, and a few articles from the UK. Even acknowledging bias in coverage, this doesn't make the cut. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Brad v 02:16, 8 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. No other evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- not notable, no reliable references.Glendoremus (talk) 05:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is hardly any coverage in reliable sources (I am finding nothing about Pakistan btw in English sources). Unless more sources can be found, this can be deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:43, 22 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 21:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Parr (actress)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Actress with parts in many films and TV shows, per Imdb, with none of those significant roles in notable productions. My searches found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 17:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm mindboggled at this deletion nomination. The contention in this deletion nomination that Katherine Parr does not meet WP:NACTOR is absurd, as that standard is "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", which she clearly meets. This is not some small-time actress. She has had a hundred or so roles, not in small plays with a local audience, but in nationally and internationally-aired films and television shows, ranging from notable (e.g. The Doctors, The Woman in White) to extremely notable (e.g. EastEnders, Coronation Street, shows that have aired internationally for decades). This isn't even an edge case; she is a clear, strong keep. Her career spanned over three decades. There are many actors on Wikipedia who have articles despite only a few roles; compared to them, she is a giant in the field. She may not be "famous" today, but, per WP:N, notability, once established, is not temporary, and she should not be punished for her career having been in a pre-Internet era. —Lowellian (reply) 12:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a running joke that every British actor has been in Doctors and God knows how many small parts have been given to people in EastEnders and Corrie. Lots of tiny parts doesn't make you notable, and any notability needs to be verified. Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that they are notable series, and Katherine Parr, with her hundred or so roles in internationally-aired productions in a career spanning decades, doesn't just meet the WP:NACTOR standard of "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"; she flies above it. —Lowellian (reply) 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that she has had any significant roles in notable productions, and significant roles is the key term. Boleyn (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Mrs. Catherick, Katherine Parr was one of the primary antagonists in The Woman in White. In The Doctors, Coronation Street, and EastEnders, her roles were not just named, but recurring. Recurring named roles are significant. —Lowellian (reply) 08:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These longstanding character actors establish notability when one considers the sheer volume of their work. She also appeared in multiple series for multiple episodes, even if they weren't in the age of Google. This one reminds me of Hilda Plowright, where we did some more WP:HEY and expanded it a bit. Any of these women from this era are quite remarkable if they managed to create and sustain an acting career for so many years, particularly the years after they were more mature women in a world that glorifies youth. I find that a lot of these people who fall into a zone before the internet got big, but after the copyright laws tightened what coverage is freely available in online scans are often difficult to get a lot of info about, but I think there is enough here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 25 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 Peanuts#Games. Using second suggested target, in consideration of scant sourcing on the developer's article. czar 09:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since December 2015. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Radarsoft, the developer. Lemon64 says it exists, so I believe it was released. However, I can't find any English-language sources that describe it. The programmer was apparently "Cees Kramer", so anyone who wants to try to find sources I missed should try that, too. I checked Google Books and Archive.org, and both came up empty, however. There are some hits for Snoopy games, but they always seem to be different ones. The biggest problem is that the developer is Dutch, so sources might be Dutch-only. If anyone locates offline or Dutch-language sources, we can always recreate this. Peanuts#Games is another good redirection target. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:11, 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. WP:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Championship Rally (Atari Lynx)[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP: Notability (video games). Homebrew video game with no claim to notability. Article was an expired WP: PROD and was deleted; the PROD was then contested post mortem. The contesting editor subsequently added to the article's list of external links, but apart from the IGN review none of them seem to indicate notability. Martin IIIa (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantive reviews/coverage outside of IGN (see the video game reliable sources custom Google search). I'd recommend a redirect to Atari_Lynx#After_Atari, where it is mentioned, but on second thought, I don't think those homebrew games should be mentioned by name there. czar 06:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 06:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This did not need to be relisted. czar 09:48, 18 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 21:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Book Club of Detroit[edit]

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

Tagged this over half a year ago, was hoping it would undergo improvement. Promotional article about a club which turns up almost nothing on searches. A couple of trivial mentions on News, and nothing in-depth on Books. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't seem to find anything truly substantial. There are brief mentions like this and I do see where some of their released books have been used as a RS in academic works, but I can't really find anything about the club itself. They certainly seem to be well thought of, but being well respected isn't something that gives notability on Wikipedia. This is probably the most in-depth thing I found, and that's a travel guide. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's some mention of them in this book, but I don't think that this would be enough to justify a keep. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~leaning~~ KEEP I just added a pair of newspaper articles that give some support to notability, and a search of JSTOR indicates that this Club's Journal, newsletter, and meetings are cited. One of the naked links in the article is to the Detroit Public Library and includes a brief description of the Club's history. I suspect that we just need to look a little harder for sources. Searches produce more without the "the" used in the toolbar. @Megalibrarygirl: who is probably in a good position to assess this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Newpapers.com turns up a number of articles in the Detroit Free Press either mentioning the Book Club, or which may be entirely about the Book Club, however, I don't have premium access to read all of the articles. I did get 64 matches, though. If anyone can access that newspaper, that would help. In HighBeam, I found an obituary about the founder of the club and a couple of articles mentioning the club. The book club has collaborated with the public library recently. The club has also apparently published books about collecting rare books and on other book-related topics. I'd lean keep, but I really wish I could access those Detroit Free Press clippings. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't access all of those old Free Press articles either, but I did find and add material from other newspapers. It's the usual problem with articles about stuff that was a bigger deal in the pre-internet era than it is today. So much of what was published back then is not available in searcheable form. I do think that I found enough to squeek past notability, and am, therefore, now changing my iVote from leaning keep to KEEP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note the risk here of our endemic Wikipedia:Systemic bias towards Recentism leading to over-aggressive deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On first pass I'm not seeing coverage to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Although like others I can't see all the articles being mentioned. Gab4gab (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that editors searching more cleverly than I would be able to source this. I can find references to items such as: "The Book Club of Detroit," John Henry Nash: A Collector's Appraisal, Gazette of the Grolier Club," December 1973, pp. 14-33, Susman, Warren I. I have no idea what it said, although the Gazette of the Grolier Club is in major research libraries. Also see snippev views of tantalizing things in a gBooks search. but only snippet views. There used to be a Quarterly Journal of the Book Club of Detroit, which does get cited. As do a fair number of books published by this Book Club. Lots of hits in this: [31] search of The Fellowship ofAmerican Bibliophilic Societies, if someone wants to comb through that stack of PDFs....

Delete I am unable to find a single article which describes the book club. There a bunch of articles where the club is mentioned by name (mostly in association with a person - like X was a member/president of the Detroit Book Club). However, there is nothing more written about the club itself - why it was significant, where did it meet and what activities did it organise. To me this seems like a local book club - yes, it existed for 50 years, but it was still a local book club without any claim of significance. Organisations need to pass WP:ORGDEPTH and the sources are not of a quality which provides significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:17, 25 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. No consensus - low participant count (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 16:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vector WX-8[edit]

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

"Vector just about hovered between complete and utter fakery and legitimate car manufacturer its whole life. It had numerous models and prototypes, and some cars even made it to customers, though Road&Track reported that fit and finish of the W8 model (of which 17 were delivered to customers) varied massively between each car.

This all culminated in the WX8. According to the utterly fantastic official website, its 10.0-litre V8 makes 2000bhp, and it would be “the only car in the world to incorporate Marine, Aviation, and Aerospace technology into its design and construction.” When a company makes wild, unsubstantiated claims like that, you know it’s probably talking rubbish." Rathfelder (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fail to see a policy-based rational for deletion here. The article is a stub and only referenced to a primary source. But it was easy to find independent sources such as [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. MB 05:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources mostly seem to say it's not notable and indeed that it never really happened. I think it would be better merged into the article about the company.Rathfelder (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't "say" if a topic is notable or not. The fact that there are many sources make it notable. What the sources say (that it wasn't very successful) is what should be documented in the article. It was displayed at the LA auto show and apparently a few were produced - which led to coverage at the time and in the later books on sportscars. MB 15:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:43, 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 02:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:35, 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. Kurykh (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Owain Astles[edit]

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

Subject of article is only notable for one event - a Kickstarter campaign to fund a film. There is no Substantial Coverage in Reliable Sources that is not about this non-notable event. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

More evidence about notable events, specifically the founding of a production company and the creation of short film, has been added. Notable evidence has been added to support this, including an article from a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popattack (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a short film doesn't make a person notable - people do that every day - and the same goes for founding a company. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with strict notability criteria. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment seems true, and creation of short film/company is not particularly notable. However, it seems the subject is notable for more than the Kickstarter campaign, based on evidence in article. Particularly social work and list of influential persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thepumpkinking (talk • contribs) 04:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) — Thepumpkinking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please can you provide links to other independent articles that demonstrate notability for anything other than the Kickstarter campaign and the related film? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are already in the article; the following two links: http://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2016/12/24-most-influential-bristolians-under-24-the-2016-list/ http://www.devon-cornwall-film.co.uk/2015/10/24/challenging-ordinary-owain-astles-aims-shine-light-real-stories-real-people-real-issues/

These all point to the same things - the Kickstarter campaign and the film. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't true; the first link does mention the film, however given the content of the rest of the article, it seems as though notability is for a range of work, as opposed to just the single film. The second link doesn't in fact mention the Kickstarter campaign or the film at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjuniperobeach (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Sanjuniperobeach (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It doesn't matter how many accounts you create to comment here - in fact, it's undermining your point. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that I'm under different accounts, however I promise you, it was not to deceive anyone! I forget the login for thepumpkinking, and it seemed quicker to create a new account. An oversight on my part perhaps, but again, I assure you it was with no ill intentions. The point, however, does remain that the subject appears to be notable for their film career and activist work, and not just for the aforementioned Kickstarter campaign. Sanjuniperobeach (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you forgot the login for Popattack too? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:CREATIVE, a person may be notable if he or she "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...], such work must have been the primary subject of [...] multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Exemplo347, WP:CREATIVE only requires one single work and multiple reports on that single work for a subject to qualify on our notability guidelines. Why do you think this person doesn't qualify on CREATIVE? I would be interested in hearing your viewpoint. Thanks. Lourdes 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: That's an easy one. The references that specifically mention the film (there are no reviews) in any detail are not independent of the subject of this article. I don't need to give a longer answer than this because it's really that simple. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Exemplo347 for the reply. How are Bristol Post and Exeter Express not independent of the subject? Lourdes 18:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are about the Kickstarter campaign itself, not the resultant creative work. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's no indication in any Reliable Source that says filming has even started, so the "resultant creative work" may not even exist. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete Point well analysed by Exemplo. Disregarding the spammy votes above, this Afd can be closed as a delete. Lourdes 02:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request Closure Closure is now 3 days overdue. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the sources here are so clear-cut: there is some degree of local and grander coverage for the director, though the point remains that it's for more the film. True, the film does not appear to have entered production, but the director can technically have significant coverage without it. In any event, if this article is recreated in the future, I suggest that it be about the film rather than the director (as the director is not known outside of the planned film) czar 06:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Close reverted per talk page request czar 10:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of minor characters in The Godfather series. J04n(talk page) 20:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louie Russo[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a minor character of unconfirmed notability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be a lot of these barely sourced or unsourced articles on comparatively minor characters from this series. The better option may be to drastically shorten and merge into List of family enemies from the Godfather series. TimothyJosephWood 13:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We have List of minor characters in The Godfather series. Merging there or deleting is probably the best option. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per J Milburn. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 25 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 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ItBit[edit]

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

PRODed by Piotrus and I concur nothing here actually establishes genuine substance for actual notability and an improvable article and that's because it's simply clear PR by clear PR sources and that alone is against our no-advertising policies, thus there's nothing to show actual establishment by this company since it's simply being funded itself. SwisterTwister talk 23:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons I stated in prod. Prod declined by a user who has been indefbanned since (User:1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR). Unfortunately, reason for indef ban are not givenbut the deprod was not done with any rationale, so it seems like serious spamming account anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:07, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't support removing the prod, the prod hadn't made a decision as to whether the topic was or was not notable, and the scope of the prod's notability search was limited to the article:
"concern = The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing [[Wikipedia:General notability guideline]] and the more detailed [[Wikipedia:Notability (companies)]] requirement...timestamp = 20161215043913"
Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The indeffed user requested the indef at ANI in the heat of the moment, so seeking sympathy based on the alleged motives of the editor seems uncivil to me. The detail of the block are in the block log, [38]. Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and after one year incubate on request Wikipedia has no need to hurry to include this, but less than two years after becoming the "first fully regulated bitcoin exchange", the topic is already appearing in Google Books. The topic already passes WP:GNG, so the question is not if we are going to cover this topic, but when. Unscintillating (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep without prejudice to revisiting in a year. The article isn't hideously promotional at the moment. There's book and magazine coverage, as well as a number of articles on coindesk.com (presuming bylined articles there can be considered sufficiently reliable) and other bitcoin focussed sites. There's also passing book coverage here and here. Paxos (financial technology company), is related to this AFD. The ItBit exchange is now a division of the parent Paxos company. At most it should be a merge/redirect at the moment (it has low but nontrivial pageviews), but that's questionable until things settle down. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:57, 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. Uncontested; per WP:SOFTDELETE – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith White Jr.[edit]

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

This article subject does not pass the notability threshold. Many of the books listed are most probably self published. As many as 15 of the references are to posts on Twitter or pictures posted on Twitter. Contributing editors may include the subject, see history. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. Bythebooklibrary (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 12:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Toscano[edit]

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

Reached only ninth in a competition. No album released, very minor chart success. Fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. When I do a search all am I getting is a lot of gossip and trivia, including her recent nuptials and tmz style reporting. Karst (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While only getting to ninth, she has been subject to coverage from the media since Idol, and IMO passes WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 18:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at that actually and WP:RS is very thin on the ground. So what media did you have in mind? Karst (talk) 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't go through all 147,000 news articles, but as far as reliable sources go, there's Billboard (several articles), Yahoo! News, and People. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 03:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Billboard article is a start. But that is only an EP. Did it chart or appear on a major label at all? The Yahoo! article narrates her American Idol experience - it really belongs in the article for that season. The People.com entry is a case in point really as it is the type of gossip style sources that I found while searching. Please note that the Google test does not indicate notability. Karst (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable singer. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is sustained and regular news coverage going back over the last six years (eg: USA Today, MTV1 and MTV2, Billboard) that shows she is more than just the Pete Best of American Idol. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: The first two articles are about her Idol exit? She gets a passing mention in the Aubrey O'Day article as a co-writer. The Billboard article was noted above. Which leaves pretty much with her Idol experience and the EP. Karst (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO #2 (her debut single was released through Interscope Records and was #16 on a Billboard chart) and WP:MUSICBIO #10 (has performed original music on many TV shows including So You Think You Can Dance, So Random, Good Day NY, Good Day LA, Hallmark Home & Family, etc. Also meets WP:MUSICBIO #1 in that she has been the subject of many, many newspaper & magazine articles, radio interviews/performances, and television appearances. GaryBass (talk) 09:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GaryBass: I see your point, but those Youtube links aren't exactly WP:RS. I acknowledged the minor chart success, but feel that falls into the Idol bracket if anything. And Heatseekers is hardly the Billboard 100. This still leaves me struggling to find good, solid sources that highlight her notability outside of a competition where she did not finish in the top 3. Karst (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst: Perhaps these links will be more to your liking: Hollywood Reporter, Fox LA, Hallmark Channel. Also here's some other links for her appearances on Perez Hilton, Hollywood Medium With Tyler Henry, Style Code Live and her performance in the LA musical For The Record: Scorsese GaryBass (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gary, thanks for those sources. I'm afraid I am still scratching the back of my head with this one. Surely the Hollywood Reporter and Perez Hilton are gossip-style websites? The first one announced her appearance at So You Think You Can Dance where she performed her first single. It is directly linked to Idol. The Fox link has just two lines, one mentions a new single. The Hallmark link again mentions her recent Idol performance, as do the other TV appearances that you list. Now the last one is very interesting. Her involvement in that musical American Crime Requiem would be something very notable. But this is the problem with the article. The post Idol career involves a string of TV show appearances, minor chart successes with the first single and her involvement in the Idol tour. What follows then is some personal appearances, a solo album that never materialises, a co-write for a single that did not chart, failed auditions and a niche film. As with many of the Idol participants, they struggle to maintain a career. In the end this was one of the reasons why the 1/2/3 position of competitions was implemented. So when we look under the criteria of WP:MUSIC this continues to fail I'm afraid. Karst (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Karst: Your assertion seems to be that all of her notability is linked to Idol. So let's approach this from a different angle. The fact that she was in American Crime Requiem (for which she received rave reviews like this and this) alone should be enough to establish notability separate from Idol, since it is doubtful that the average Beverly Hills theatergoer is a fan or viewer of Idol. But she also has a whole other career as a national anthem singer. She is the official anthem singer of the Los Angeles Kings, has sung for both of their Stanley Cup Championship playoff runs in 2012 and 2014 and is considered the Kings' good luck charm. She was even a presenter at the 2014 NHL Awards and was featured on Fox Sports West's Kings Weekly. Again, none of this is linked to Idol in any way, because I can guarantee you that NHL hockey fans are not watching American Idol and in fact, most of them know her only as the Kings' anthem singer. If singers like Jim Cornelison and Rene Rancourt (who have zero notablity other than for singing the national anthem for the NHL) deserve their own article, then so does Pia. GaryBass (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter isn't a gossip website. It's a trade paper for the entertainment industry, like Variety (magazine). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable singer that passes WP:MUSICBIO#1, WP:MUSICBIO#2 and WP:GNG. Aspects (talk) 09:41, 22 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Place of power[edit]

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

So many reasons. This is horribly sourced to spam sites like sacredsites.com and is pure woo. It overlaps in content with several other articles like Sacred natural site and Shrine and a few others. This was redirected to Energy (esotericism) in this diff by someone else, but that was reverted, so time to just kill this through community discussion. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, when I nominated this, content had already been merged to Energy (esotericism) and the content is already there. So in my view !votes for delete are the same as !votes to merge/redirect. This article should not exist, is the point. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty widely used concept in popular culture[39] for which the term can't seem to survive 30 seconds on related pages. The article makes no attempt to claim anything other than the concept exists, has influenced popular culture, and to highlight exactly the overlap described in the AfD proposal. While I'm sure "Woo" is a highly technical term, the sites were used purely to demonstrate that this is a topic of interest for some. If examination and description of that area of overlap didn't immediate meet [edits like this] I'd agree that no separate article was needed. However, the revival of the page happened because the redirect target didn't even contain the term or a workable reference to the topic to which the term might be attached. Keep. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found many of the sources to be unreliable as well. I also agree that the above referenced articles cover much of the same ideas. I don't think an entire article is needed for popular culture interaction with the idea. Furiousferret (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a lot of google search results for "place of power" but they are in large part cases of it being just a coincidental phrase different from the article's use. The present content is not well cited. Looking at the article history (in 2009) [40] [41] I see the article was a redirect for 7 years prior to Darker Dreams providing essentially the current content [42] in Dec 2016 and subsequently engaging in an edit war with Nikkimaria.—DIY Editor (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having heard the term multiple times in relation to places like StoneHenge and Avebury (hell see the TV series children of the stones) I see no reason to delete it, improve it yes (unless this material is covered in another article).Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Energy (esotericism). It is a non-notable topic. The unreliable sources in the article do not count towards notable. QuackGuru (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per lack of adequate reliable sourcing to support a standalone article. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems to me to perhaps qualify under WP:NOTNEO. I don't see anything specifically indicating that the topic has received sufficient coverage in sources to merit a standalone article. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. There are no secondary sources that discuss the concept and bring together its use by different writers. TFD (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Energy (esotericism). Fails notability. See my comments below about the sources others have linked in the threaded discussion. There's only one that potentially meets WP:RS. —PermStrump(talk) 22:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jytdog and QuackGuru should remember than MEDRS does not apply here. Perhaps this is all aery-faery nonsense, but it is also WP:Notable nonsense, believed by many people for thousands of years and written about by a good many of them. In particular, written about them since the coincidence of the 1920s boom in post-WWI English spiritualism and the rise of the private motor car for rural touring. Alfred Watkins and Julian Cope would be two obvious starting points for English or British and US sites. Perhaps Copey will follow Japrocksampler with a third volume of The Japanese Antiquarian, as that's a country rife with such sites and hardly discussed in Western, English language sources. There are plenty of sources for this topic, even limiting to pre-internet printed sources, so I fail to see why some (perhaps unwise) use of "spam sites" changes this. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This I may think is part of the problem, Cope talks about sacred sites, and it is clear that this "places of power" idea encompass that. But these are not shrines dedicated to a thing. Maybe this is what should be done, a move to something like "mystical sites".Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe "sacred sites" as this source calls them [43].Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sacred sites" or "sacred places" might be more workable as a title, although I think they are still neologisms. But there are at least a few reference works relating to that broad topic area, and it also helps make it clear that the subject isn't about any "places of power" of any individual or groups of individuals. John Carter (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Sacred sites" aren't the same thing, although many overlap. A sacred site is any location that humans have consecrated by their own choice. A place of power is somewhere believed to be (and disbelieve this if you wish, but there are those who hold with it) a place that had "power" pre-existing to humanity. St Paul's Cathedral and The Oval are sacred sites to their particular groups of followers, but don't have the inherent powerful nature that Watkins describes. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, any suggestions?Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that is a very strange statement. they are the same kind of places from the point of view of those who hold a site "sacred" or see it is a "place of power" - either believer sees some greater "thing" acting there. different words arising from different belief systems for that; "place of power" is new age, and "sacred" is what we use for traditional religions. That is what the refs say. in light of the new-ageyness of "place of power" the redirect to "energy" is an appropriate fallback to delete. but this is really pop culture trivia per the lack of decent refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, having myself, in some time I've spent offline reviewing reference sources of all sorts, I don't see the distinction made by Andy above in at least one of the "reference sources" for one of the terms I mentioned above, although, admittedly, at this time, I don't remember which. John Carter (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary per WP:NAD. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Energy (esotericism). The sources don't all seem to be talking about exactly the same thing, makes more sense to cover within the aforementioned article as a subtopic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That os why some of us think this needs a separate article, precisely because it does not cover only on theory.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced there is enough to merit it's own article, hence the suggestion that it be a subtopic of an existing article on the broader concept. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Energy (esotericism). Not enough here for a stand-along article. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because a handful to reliable sources use the same combination of three words doesn't mean they're referring to the same thing (i.e. subject). There is no evidence that "place of power" as used across these sources is anything other than a phrase. As such, I agree with JudeccaXIII that WP:NAD applies, and in particular WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Since I don't believe we have any reliable sources covering the social or historical significance of the phrase "place of power," I do not believe it is sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
iNuke. per Nominator. -Roxy the dog. bark 19:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Energy (esotericism) or Carlos Castaneda who originated the concept. Poor sources and SYNTH cannot create a topic notable enough to warrant a stand alone article.- LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Earth mysteries which seems to be a better written article about this topic. - MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even after all the sources provided below the specific formulation "places of power" lacks notability. It's an amorphous New Age concept lacking any solid basis to even source. Capeo (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is either WP:DICTDEF or it is WP:COAT. Either way, it's a delete. jps (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delety McDeleteface, as per the many, many comments to that effect above. Famous _dog (c) 09:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion[edit]

A few (dodgy) sources

https://sacredsites.com/ http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlaceOfPower (cultural depictions) http://www.nidwalden.com/en/explanation http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Places-of-Mystery-and-Power/ https://cliffseruntine.wordpress.com/cauldron-of-enchantment/natural-places-of-power/ http://www.encyclopedia-of-religion.org/places_of_power.html http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-mystical-magical-places-england.php http://survincity.com/2011/05/places-of-power-and-karmic-geography/

Yes it is Pseudoscience (I am not even sure I would go that far, it utter rubbish), but it is out there.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more refs https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aKVNTzWQejEC&pg=PA47&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=RTVUanO4-9sC&pg=PA157&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nYWJGMzuXf8C&pg=PA104&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=b3opAobe2K8C&pg=PA20&dq=Juan+Matus+%2B+places+of+power&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjR2ojn4LXRAhWVOsAKHWoOA1cQ6AEINDAE#v=onepage&q=Juan%20Matus%20%2B%20places%20of%20power&f=false

Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Perhaps you would consider condensing your links by properly framing with a [] pair like [44], and commenting in indented (or bulleted) and clear sections of your own, as you've made a bit of a mess of this page. At any rate, those links don't seem to establish notability, several are from one author and the others are fringey. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why do you keep bringing terrible sources? Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To show that this is out there, yes I agree the sources are not great, but then this becomes an issue of are the sources RS. The problem is I can remember hearing (And reading) about this some 40 years ago (but not in connection with shamanism). The problem is that all the sources I can find on line cover only (really) that. But then that is hardly a surprise as not all books or magazines are available on line.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More links (I will try to format them properly)

[[45]][[46]][[47]][[48]] Calls them power points, but the concept is the same.

[[49]]

These are more along the lines of the stuff I recall.Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] Looking for slightly better sources. I can point to descriptions in this wiki where the term "place of power" is used without a second thought[58][59][60] that aren't included in my list of "cultural references" or the term is used for linguistic clarity[61]. Maybe it should just be a dictionary entry, but it's getting difficult look much of anywhere without coming across some variation on this term in popular culture. Darker Dreams (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Darker Dreams's sources: Passing mention, Different meaning, Different meaning, Doesn't use the term "places of power" (or the alternative titles), Non-notable independent publisher, Non-notable publisher of possibly only two titles, See previous, Maybe RS. The last couple links are to other WP articles and not sources. —PermStrump(talk) 22:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Slatersteven's sources, all self-published or user-generated websites or self-published books using CreateSpace. —PermStrump(talk) 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[62] disagrees.Slatersteven (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources don't use the phrase "places of power". Ley lines already has a separate article. —PermStrump(talk) 22:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As places of power and ley lines aren't the same thing, then that's probably for the best. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sources (my second batch do, do you want the quotes?) do use the term, and this is not just about lay lines, but a much wider concept (as all the sources show).Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close, sources have been provided, and it seems that some users appear to have not even bothered to read the sources we have found (let alone looked themselves).Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

relist[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: in light of new sources provided, additional discussion should move to consensus in a single relisting period Go Phightins! 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 04:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining my previous position. I agree that this page needs significant help. I agree that there is overlap with other articles. However, overlap does not automatically foreclose an article. That overlap is part of the point, given that the articles named as clearly overlapping don't cover the target subject matter. Arguably, that unexplored overlap is clear evidence of link-worthy gap. Admittedly, to produce something to fill that gap requires reliable sourcing. However, I have yet to see any indication of due diligence on the part of the nominator or any of those sharp-shooting efforts to improve the article. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious, for those voting delete as overlap, what section or passages people feel adequately covers this (sub)topic. Similarly, for those voting merge, I'd be interested in seeing an attempt to add that information- especially given the history of swift reverts I've already highlighted. Darker Dreams (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It already was merged by nikkimaria and improved there by me: dif series. do not misrepresent what has already happened. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, after this revision I made assumptions based on previous behaviors that would remain the final outcome. I'm not convinced that entirely covers the subject. Incidentally, I've still seen no evidence that you met your due diligence requirements before the AFD prod, which unsurprisingly would probably both move towards filling out that stub-section and, having done that, convincing me that deletion and merging is a reasonable course. Darker Dreams (talk) 02:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is an "AFD prod"? you keep writing things that make no sense or are just incorrect. gah. Jytdog (talk) 02:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I misspoke. WP:AFD not a WP:PROD. Just because you don't understand, or agree, with what I say doesn't make it lack sense or incorrect. Nor do your regular personal sticks or editorial onomatopoeia add to the persuasiveness of your argument. "gah" and

Facepalm [63]. Please find your way back to WP:CIVIL. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't view you as persuadeable; am just trying to minimize your disruption. Jytdog (talk) 07:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: I'm a little surprised to see this relisted for lack of consensus. Seems like the overwhelming opinion was to delete. I'm not sure which sources are new, personally I saw all of them. Do you want us each to explicitly agree with Permstrump's analysis of them? The sources are weak and in some cases totally unrelated. It is outside of Wikipedia's scope to document phrases that are very infrequently used, or used coincidentally in different fields unrelated to the use being described in the article. This article seems like more of an attempt to create a new term than to document a notable one. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you see such an overwhelming consensus, perhaps you should be a bureaucrat. Even if I were to find a consensus that the article should not be kept (which is borderline), there remain significant discussion points regarding a possible merger or redirect. Leaving this open for seven more days should help clarify some of those issues. Go Phightins! 03:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins!: There were 7 delete (with 1 "or" merge and 1 "or" redirect), 1 merge, 1 redirect, 1 merge/redirect, (for 3 total merge, 3 total redirect) and 3 keep. Redirect and merge are both opinions against the article. So we have 10 opinions against and 3 for. So there doesn't seem to be anything borderline about opposition to the article. I think rather than talk of new sources (which were already addressed) the question is only whether a redirect should be left in place and whether any of the material should be retained. So to speak to that, I am not opposed to a redirect to Energy (esotericism), but am opposed to the current material being used verbatim in another article because it is written under the premise of this phrase being in significant use and seems to be WP:SYNTHy. —DIY Editor (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments."[64]. Darker Dreams (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I know it's not majority rule. So the admin might be discounting the arguments behind some of the delete comments to come to the conclusion that there was a lack of consensus against the article, only I don't see any discussion of that. I see only 3 lone editors out of 13 putting forth any argument to keep the article at all. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very interested to see what anyone else would do with this topic. Particularly what information could be found with a concerted attempt. As a point, the first thing I did after building the entire stub that has been under discussion is note that the sources were bad and needed replaced.[65]. Aside from myself and, following the AFD proposal, user:Slatersteven nowhere has there been a discussion of some failed effort to find sources or do anything more than delete as much as quickly as possible. That is, by the way, why I went to WP:BEFORE "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to: B. Carry out these checks; If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources. (See step D.)" The only people to show any signs of making that effort are finding things. Yes, every attempt at producing a source has been met with "not-reliable." Of course, when the topic is approached as effectively unsupportable (my interpretation) "like most New Age hooey." [66] it becomes difficult to assume that any attempt to move forward in a legitimate manner will be treated to anything but attempts to simply overcome through saying "nope," regardless of what can be found. Darker Dreams (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it's a New Age or whatever topic, it's that as a phrase it does not appear notable. Basically a few extremely marginal authors have used it in the sense the article presents it. Finding references to "place of power" or "place" and "power" is not finding "place of power" used as a real term in any significant section of the relevant fields of study. Most incidents of "place of power" (and there are many) are not what is described in the article. That's a problem. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I've spent time searching for the phrase several different ways. It just doesn't show up much as a clear term in the parlance of the field of study, but (as I said in my first comment on this AfD) it does show up quite often meaning everything but what is described in the article. Also I changed the section title "Sacred sites" in Energy (esotericism) to "Locations" - seemed more neutral and accurate. Sacred sites is no better than places of power IMO. —DIY Editor (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for the discussion of "precisely those words." Truth in advertising; I've never intended to claim that "place of power" is a notable term. Only that it is among those "notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists." The goal is not to advance or document this as a specific term but "to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."[67]. With your renaming of the Energy_(esotericism) sub-section I can see it as a cleaner fit for merge. I do still have reservations regarding doing so, though, given the results already highlighted of previous attempts at implementation. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is partially based on users attempts to make this about one use of the phrase. As well as the idea it can only be about that one phrase and not a wider idea of places of spiritual and magical energy.

[68]

[69] , this discuses it in a more political sense, but still linked to mystical thought.

[70], another for you all to shout "not RS at".

[71], use in fiction Popular culture).

[72], this time it's used in a more political sense.

[73] this talks about the trem as an internal concept.

[74] in C eromonail magic.

[75]

As I said at the very start, this is not just a concept that only encompass shamanism or ley lines. We should not be discussing if this article should be deleted until we have discussed what it should be about.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got to the 2nd one and stopped, laughing. here. actually read it - it says "In this chapter I attempt to clarify the concept of national mysticism by focusing specifically on the place of "power" within it. This chapter is therefore devoted to nationalistic interpretations of power..." -- in other words, the writer is discussing the role played by power in national mysticism. This has nothing to do with some location where "energy" manifests.

The third link is to a "paranormal romance" novel called 'Mystic Witch".

others are as bad - eg the Anasazi book simply says "X became a place of power and influence, a place of wealth, monumental archictecture, and cultural importance." Plain old vanilla history writing.

even the ceremonial magic ref is about people taking positions of power in the RW. Not about mystical locations.

Yep, zero difference between the RW and paranormal romance fiction going on.

the mission of WP is to summarize accepted knowledge. Accepted knowledge is not found in fiction or on TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer (diff). Summarizing sources means actually dealing with what they say not just finding the phrase where ever it is used.

Like most New Agey garbage, clearly the word salad is what matters to proponents, (eg see the Chopra wisdom generator). Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is to summarize verifiable knowledge.Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy here: WP:NOTEVERYTHING. We summarize accepted knowledge by finding reliable sources and summarizing what they say. Don't confuse mission with strategy and tactics. And please stop wasting everyone's with inappropriate, OFFTOPIC,, terrible refs. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content." WP:NOTPAPER Just because you don't like it, don't agree with it, or think it's "New Age hooey" or "New Agey garbage" doesn't mean that it's not a notable concept. Meanwhile, again, please review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Sources can be debunked without personal attacks, and a useful way to do so would include showing what you do consider a valid source regarding "new age" topics and explaining the difference. While doing so isn't WP:COMPULSORY, it will go a long ways towards making the rest of your commentary seem less personally hostile and generally unreasonable. Darker Dreams (talk) 00:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the refs above are reasonable there is nothing I can do about that. Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't even look at the refs, confident that they would be immediately "debunked" regardless of the effort that had been put into them. Your approach to the subject matter, willingness to dismiss respectably published books out of hand[76], and consistent tone trumped any concern I might have for whether a person looking for material was wasting your time or not. What did you say above? My concern is "trying to minimize your disruption." Darker Dreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with many of these sources is that they are not using "place of power" in the sense of this article but rather, as I have said repeatedly, as a coincidental phrase often with "place" not meaning a physical location at all but a figurative use of the word.@Slatersteven: Are you actually reading the purported sources you give before you link them? I feel like my time is being wasted here. Seriously? —DIY Editor (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darker Dreams: It may be that the title of the article is part of why it seems objectionable. It's hard to separate the reasons the topic is questionable from the reasons the title are. I'll grant that it's conceivable that an article on the topic with a less stilted/contrived title and better content could pass Wikipedia standards as far as I understand them - if the material is there to draw on in reliable sources which is the crux of the matter. —DIY Editor (talk) 07:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the title of the article was the most "plain english" and least stilted way to approach the subject, buttressed by it having been a previous article and finding some uses of that term in Wikipedia. As I said, I'm starting to see where it could fit naturally as part of the esoteric energy subsection; but there's also a popular culture slant that is a piece of how this article was being built that doesn't fit with the overall Energy_(esoteric) article. Darker Dreams (talk) 08:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then maybe you are right that the topic merits an article under this title. The relevant subsection in Energy (esotericism) (which also seems like an unusual title to me) could be changed from "Locations" to "Places". Why not Place (esotericism) for this article? I don't know about wikipedia naming conventions or whether that parenthetical form is desirable, but it does, in simple terms, make clear the term being used and in what field. —DIY Editor (talk) 10:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't eliminate the problem of the quality of the content which is part of my reason for wanting to see it deleted. And potential WP:SYNTH since the topic has to be drawn from sources that will refer to allegedly the same ideas by different terms. —DIY Editor (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I say (for example) uses the term in a political sense I think it is clear I must have read it. As I have (repeatedly) said, this is the issue here. The term has multiple usage, only some of which are "hokum". Also if it quacks ans swims in water (ect)... We do not need to have the exact phrase (unless the page is about the exact phrase, in which case we have to give all definitions). So we should not be talking about AFD, but rather what the pages is about.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are trying to do some kind of Oxford Dictionary thing and track all uses of the term? That is not what Wikipedia articles do. WP:NOTDICTIONARY Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So we do not have any pages on terms that have wide usage in different areas?Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would add, it is you who is saying we can only use "the exact term" and that this page is about "the exact term", you are the one using the "dictionary" argument.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not what i have been saying. What i have been saying is that the subject matter of this ...article... is already in discussed in other articles. The only justification for this article existing would be if "place of power" is some kind of technical term distinct from the various kinds of sacred spaces we already have articles on (like Shrine, sacred natural site, or the like). No one has shown that - in fact the edits and refs have just shown that this phrase is loosely used in various places, meaning various things. Nothing has shown that "place of power" is a specific kind of "charged" place. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: I am having trouble following you. You claim that because sometimes people coincidentally group the words "place" "of" and "power" together that merits an article? And what exactly would the topic of that article be? It's not an idiomatic expression or common phrase, and I've seen little or nothing to indicate that it is notable term in any field. I think a link that you meant to include didn't make it through. Quotes would make it easier to try to understand what in particular you think justifies the content or the title. —DIY Editor (talk) 00:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I am pointing out that if this article is about "just the phrase" that is what it should be, about the phrase (and as has been pointed out WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The problem is here is that as long as we are hung up on "it must include that phrase" we are not going to go anywhere. The subject is the idea of (what A C Clarke describes as "energy Transmitters"). Natural or man made places of mystical energy. If however it is (as some have tried to claim) about "just the phrase" then it is about the phrase, and not anyone subject.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the article should not be about the phrase "place of power" in all ways it might have been used, that's a given. It's not opponents to the article who have provided references constituted of figurative use of the word "place" like, for example, "In this chapter, I attempt to clarify the concept of national mysticism by focusing specifically on the place of 'power' within it." Do you see how that reference, despite including the phrase "place of power", is not relevant to the article? If we can now agree that finding examples of "place of power" used in literature is not on its own justification for the article I think we are getting somewhere. —DIY Editor (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that rather than continue to argue over deficiencies in the sources that have been offered so far (which is tempting), I would like to repeat that it is possible the concept of a place or location with esoteric "energies" is a legitimate topic for an article. The main concerns are coming up with reliable sources, and not violating WP:SYNTH by combining ideas from two sources, say one about a "nexus" with one about a "node" or "place of power", to make new statements not contained in one or the other. And I do find something peculiar about Place of power as an article title, but that alone wouldn't be reason to call for deletion of the article - except perhaps when coupled with the scarcity of quality source material for the concept. I would expect to find more and better sources than we have seen in this AFD and tend to believe they're there. —DIY Editor (talk) 09:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I would ask you to tell users who refuse to accept any source that is clearly talking about "sites of mystical energy" (the same topic) just because it does not use the phrase "place of power". So for a start we actually need to decide what this article is about. If it is about sites that contain "mystical" energy then is it synthesis to say that one sauce calling it a "node of mystical power" and another as a "nexus of earth energy" Synthesis, as they are both talking about a place that has inherent power?Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as here (for example [77], how is this not talking about sites that have power?Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious these discussions are going no where else other than in circles, and policy seems irrelevant no matter what position editors take. At this point, the best way progress can be made is let the dispute die, and wait for the AfD to be closed. The only thing that really concerns me is the relisting comment by Admin Go Phightins! per possibly WP:INVOLVED. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JudeccaXIII: I'm not sure I understand what makes you think I'm involved. That relist was my first interaction ever with this article or this discussion, and I have no other familiarity with the topic. My comment above was merely an attempt to explain my decision to relist when questioned. I will leave it to another admin to close this discussion for good. Go Phightins! 03:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think, on the question of merging this material with Energy (esotericism), one problem is that it assumes that all these sources actually relate to "energy" and not some other concept, whatever it might be. Is a place considered special ("sacred") only because of "energy"? The issue of possible WP:SYNTH is already present in the Locations section of Energy (esotericism). Without some reliable secondary source on the topic of how different authors in the "esoteric" fields refer to the same or similar concepts, I think combining them is WP:OR (the same problem as is present in this article). —DIY Editor (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Above, MrOllie has brought up the article "Earth mysteries" which I don't believe has been mentioned yet in this AFD. That does seem to be a better fit for the topic of Place of power (although I don't know why "mysteries" is plural). Certainly the duplication of topic is more support for deleting this article. I am not opposed to merging anything salvageable and appropriate into Earth mysteries. —DIY Editor (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I;ve always understood this term as having a specific meaning. Of course it overlaps--most topics do. DGG ( talk ) 02:56, 28 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. WP:CSD#G7. Author blanked the page. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaaz[edit]

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

Doesn't have coverage meeting WP:GNG. Humble District is a non-notable label. That may be him on the cover of Pattern Magazine but he isn't identified and I don't know whether he's covered inside.[78] The "official A3C Music Festival artist" designation appears to mean that he won a weekly poll of fans of an A3C Facebook page, to which a link on the last of the article's source's leads.[79] Largoplazo (talk) 03:24, 17 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)} 05:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:46, 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 merge to Nemesis (mythology). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Xena and Hercules)[edit]

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

This doesn't establish notability. Nemesis (mythology) exists, so not sure why the real world details are there. TTN (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nemesis (mythology). It can can in the popular culture section. Longevitydude (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nemesis (mythology). --74.190.107.238 (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as aspect of a notable show that exists in the real world... --24.112.201.254 (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Blocked sock. Reyk _YO! 05:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a merge to Nemesis (mythology) for that very reason. Longevitydude (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless some decent third-party sources are forthcoming. I would perhaps not be opposed to a very brief mention, with a decent source, in our article on Nemesis. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nemesis (mythology). Notable depiction in fiction. Dimadick (talk) 00:55, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:43, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Rhind[edit]

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

Active and prolific in neighborhood/ward affairs but his impact appears entirely local and without external reach. I don't find coverage meeting WP:GNG, the general notability guidelines for inclusion, or anything that meets WP:BIO. The notes at the end are overwhelmingly works by him, with little about him, and I no independent substantial coverage of him via Google. Nomination withdrawn, persuaded by the recognitions bestowed.Largoplazo (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:47, 17 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)} 05:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page could certainly benefit from some more external references but Blackheath is quite a significant part of London and his MBE is recognition that his work on the history and culture of the area is notable. I think this does pass notability on the grounds that he has done significant published work on Blackheath which is very well known outside its London boundaries cf Hampstead, Greenwich, Chelsea and therefore adds to the sum of human knowledge in a useful way. YellowFratello (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have highlighted the MBE and other honours, and like YellowFratello, think Rhind does pass notability (I live in the Blackheath area, but have no involvement with Rhind or any of the organisations mentioned in the article). He has contributed expertise to subjects (eg: artists) outside SE London. I have shortened the article, removed the walks links, and tried to sort his written work into a more intelligible format and a logical order. Paul W (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The MBE, FSA (which would pass WP:PROF#C3 were he an academic) and honorary fellowship at Goldsmiths are all solid indicators of notability per WP:ANYBIO. The article is in dire need of references to independent sources, but I'd be very surprised if those weren't available. If not, the uncited material can be removed and we'd still have a useful stub. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question re MBE Can being a member (the lowest-ranked of five OBE recognitions) really be considered a significant award for purposes of assessing notability when over 100,000 of them are living today? Over 1,400 of them can be newly designated every year. It isn't exactly as distinguishing an award as receiving as is, for example, the Academy Award for Best Picture. (Having looked it up, I'm not taking issue with the significance of the FSA achievement.) Largoplazo (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unlike the Oscars, MBEs are awarded for excellence in any field, so being one of the 100,000 so honoured out of a pool of 65 million is still pretty selective. – Joe (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject meets PROF (the FSA election) as well as ANYBIO since he received "a well-known and significant award or honor". I know some will argue that the award has been handed out so often it might not be significant but considering the entire population of the British Commonwealth, an MBE is not all that common; it's certainly well-known. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a one-off wonder . Consistent work and expertise. For the record I think turning down an MBE should be instant notability! YellowFratello (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nom.Notable WP:Author.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Note that we have always held over many AfDs that an MBE or OBE is not sufficient to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. Although a CBE or above is. He may be notable (I'm neutral on that), but he is not inherently notable for having an MBE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree about MBEs, actually most honours, but this LP has the publishing girth that makes him notable. YellowFratello (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW, WP:OUTCOMES. Having been awarded MBE doesn't create per se notability, but can be evidence of notability, combined with other reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 20 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Around: Party Panic[edit]

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

Sourced to author's social media accounts. Probably not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any coverage of this book in reliable sources like newspaper articles and the like. It looks like he has a small following, but not big enough to where it gained his series attention from WP:RS, which is ultimately what we'd need for an article about the book (or about either of the creators). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find reliable sources for this book. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:46, 24 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Blackbird[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable spacecraft. No reliable third party source and nothing to assert notability here. Fans needs to be pointed out that this is Wikipedia, not BSG Wiki as this is only written to appeal to fans of the series, hardly anybody else. Cylon B (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know this was nominated months ago. I wish to withdraw this nom. Cylon B (talk) 02:16, 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monique (actress)[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. "Freakiest Girl in Porn" is not a well-known/significant award, and Urban X/Spice awards generally fail PORNBIO regardless of category. Negligible biographical content, reliably sourced or otherwise. (NYTimes article does not even mention article subject). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:02, 17 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)} 05:51, 17 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)} 05:51, 17 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)} 05:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sig RS coverage that discusses the topic directly and in detail. The massive list of nominations does not make up for the lack of sources. The one award listed is not significant and well known. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominations and minor award win do not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Notability is not inherited from "bestselling" video, especially without RS acknowledgment of a significant role. Lacks significant reliable source coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mekanics[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Reads like a record company promo. Except for short bios on commercial download sites and a one-sentence mention here, there appears to be no secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:29, 9 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)} 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- too promotional to consider keeping; notability is not inherited from more notable entities. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Mohammad Sally (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Purely self-promotional and linking a bunch of big names in attempt to appear notable. WP:NOTINHERITED. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

K. C. Timmons[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources. Does not appear to meet any requirements of WP:NHOCKEY. Yosemiter (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet NHOCKEY and not finding significant coverage. Rlendog (talk) 17:30, 18 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.