Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Tarkir[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per only having WP:ROUTINE sources (even in languages other than English, all I found were local or teams reporting that he had been signed). Fails WP:NHOCKEY by never playing in one of the premier leagues, never accumulating enough games (individually or combined) in any of the leagues listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment for criterion #3, and no honors awarded for criterion #4. Yosemiter (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as long as we are sure that the Danish League 'Medal Ligaen' (The league the Odense Bulldogs are in despite the article's citing of a different league), or HockeyAllsvenskan of Sweden are not premier professional leagues...HockeyAllsvenskan is almost certainly not. A case could be made for Medal Ligaen but I find it unconvincing. So, yeah, delete it. Bill McKenna (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The Metal Ligaen (correctly called AL-Bank Ligaen when the subject played for the Odense Bulldogs in that league, the league changed its name in 2014) is the top Danish league but it is about the same skill level and media coverage of HockeyAllsvenskan, many other second tier European leagues and likely the ECHL. As I said, even in the native language searches nothing came up that would grant this player notability. Yosemiter (talk) 06:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NHOCKEY DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:01, 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 speedy delete. G5: Creation by a sock of User:Mokezhilao. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Yibing (performer)[edit]

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

A 20-year-old actress with only 3 credits (according to the article), none with an article on en.wiki (or zh.wiki for the matter). All references are exactly the same PR release. Orphaned page. It appears that she is currently a Central Academy of Drama student, so she may have a very good acting career ahead of her, but even if you look past the promotional tone this is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON.Timmyshin (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - There's not a whole lot of independent coverage, but the major portal Netease reports that she's the leading actress in the upcoming film "I'm a Cop". Seems notable. -Zanhe (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any info that says "I'm a Cop" has begun filming? Or will be filmed? Who is the director? The article says it's an "Internet film". Timmyshin (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (not notable by any stretch of the imagination). Bearian (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The major portal Netease reports . -Renyuren (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a confirmed sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As the leading actress in a coming film, she seems to be notable enough for inclusion. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MordeKyle That 163.com "report" is nothing more than a PR release, and there's no other information on that "film". Besides, the report says it's an "Internet film" which anybody can make. Timmyshin (talk) 08:38, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of European Directors of Roads[edit]

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

I have prodded this with the following rationale '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. Also, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. ', then I realized this was already prodded by User:Robert McClenon (rationale: No references except its own web site. No third-party evidence of notability.) and deprodded by author (WP:SPA). While some new refs were added, this is still primarily referenced to sources related to the organization itself or few other EU organizations, i.e. a form of WP:WALLEDGARDEN. In the end, as I noted in my prod rationale, this seems to fail notability and be nothing else than a YellowPages-like entry. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - When I tagged this article for speedy deletion, which was improperly removed by the author, it was a stub. When I tagged this article for PROD, which was properly removed by the author (because anyone may remove a PROD), it had no references other than its own web site. It has a few references other than its own web site. Just because an author is an SPA doesn't mean that their articles have to be deleted. The author has a right to be an SPA. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the sources are simply announcements and mentions and the information is no better than a guide, nothing amounting to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies have already been made for the 'improper' removal of the initial speedy deletion tag. The very first outline of the page was inadvertently saved at 15:29 and editing completed at 16:04. In the interval the speedy deletion tag was unintentionally overwritten. WP:NONPROFIT states that notability is justified by both an international dimension (ok) and multiple reliable independent sources (to be improved). As per WP:NOBLECAUSE on non-profits, mission etc will be deleted. It is proposed to strengthen the contributions in terms of research, road safety, climate change (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/publications/international_practices/page08.cfm) and ITS which have all been extensively referenced - e.g. CEDR on the National Academy's TRB data base https://trid.trb.org/Results?txtKeywords=cedr. Please WP:DONOTDEMOLISH whilst this is done. Thanks DAuderghem (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surprised there isn't more coverage of this organization. A Gnews search for the French title yields but one hit. @DAuderghem: Reliable sources do not have to be in English. So if you combine the best results in all European languages, you might be able to cobble together enough good strong sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are a number of references now. This is a boring nonprofit organization, not seeking publicity, an umbrella/coordinating organization apparently. It exists. Wikipedia is great for covering boring stuff like this, providing the good function of being a reference on what the heck it is. --do ncr am 06:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mainly per Doncram. It can be proven to exist with references and holds a degree of notability, so no reason to delete. Rcsprinter¹²³ (lecture) 20:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What, this is still open? I argued "Keep" already above. Dis shud be closd. --do ncr am 18:07, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stefanowski[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond Sky News, the one third-party source listed in the article, the only thing I found is this, a one-line passing mentions. Huon (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a run of the mill business person. Virtually all upper management, literally millions of people in big business, have an M.B.A., serve on university boards, and publicize themselves. There is nothing notable about this man. There is nothing in this article that outlines the subject's real accomplishments. If there are, they need to be put into a new article. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see notability either. I looked around for reviews of the book, which could help the case for keeping, but there's nothing there, just Goodreads, Amazon, etc. 03:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
Delete - For all of the above. I don't see anything notable about this person, nor any online material that would give hope that it could be expanded to fit notability. Garchy (talk) 20:14, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blitsy[edit]

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

Declined several times at AfC for not actually having convincing substance beyond the trivial business announcements, listings, company quotes, funding columns and other triviality. Our non-negotiable policies explicitly shoe we are not a business listing and that's exactly what this is, hence should never have been accepted when it's clear it only exists as a business campaign, and it's emphasized when there's such close persistence in puffing the company'a funding achievements. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 03:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this article has substance. Successive rounds of VC funding augers well for the prospects of the business. I think we should have an article on this subject. It seems to pass WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy WP:NOT applies here which always outweighs suggestive guidelines; also, "successive rounds of funding" is actually what WP:CORPDEPTH state against because "funding information is not substance in notability". Overall, WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a business listing for simple information for its finances or similar". So where in policy is "we should have an article" stated? (wP:NOT certainly supports any deletion when it's only for PR) SwisterTwister talk 22:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:ORG. The WP:NOT policy defers to WP:ORG when it comes to determining whether a page should exist about a company: "See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability." Stickee (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT is non-negotiable because it outweighs every suggestive notability guideline there is, the concerns explicitly specify in WP:Wikipedia Is Not A Business Listing and the fact this article had only ever focused with advertising information, outweighs WP:ORG, which in itself says "This is not a guarantee of notability". Also, please specify which of the sources satisfy our policies, because the current ones that exist here are the ones either published or republished as company announcements, listings, mentions and similar hence WP:ORG itself says such "sources are not establishing notability because they are not independent of the subject and are simply trivial" in the specific section of "Depth": " Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability". SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope The first perogative is to determine whether a topic is notable and passes GNG. That takes precedence over any other policy. If a topic passes GNG, then the article should be rewritten, not deleted. The WP:NOT policy tells us what should and should not be contained in articles. There is no interpretation that states that if an article contains promotional content, then it is automatically deleted. (Apologies if I've misinterpreted what you are saying, but I've seen you make this assertion in the past, pointed it out to you, and you continue to make this incorrect assertion.) -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analysis -

1 is a guide
2 is another announcement
3 is a funding announcement
4 is their own listing
5 is another funding announcement
6 is another business announcement
7 is another business announcement
8 is their own listing
9 is a business interview
10 is another funding announcement
11 is another business announcement

So none of this in fact even satisfies the basic standards of suggestive guidelines. In fact, this vigilant search showed nothing but mirrors of above, complete to the same republished consistency. SwisterTwister talk 23:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per SwisterTwister, definitely WP:NOT - none of these are reliable sources. -- Dane ^talk 02:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:37, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robolliance[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ORG and general notability guidelines. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising in and out, both information and sources alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable in every sense of the word. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon. If it stays around long enough to meet notability thresholds, try again later. But then write it neutral tone and use English instead of Marketing Capital Letter Usage. W Nowicki (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet our GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 16:01, 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 redirect to Gadaria. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gadri (clan)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Previous creations have been by banned/blocked users and I suspect the same may apply here but, regardless, it isn't a notable group. Sitush (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Article is hardly notable and provides us with almost no information and references. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect. At the time it was deleted as the creation of a banned user, I'd made it a redirect to Gadaria (and maybe it should have been left that way). See Talk:Gadaria. Doug Weller talk 13:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:59, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Helicopters[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Subject seems to be not significantly notable at all - the only information which can be found is about crash of one of their helicopters. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This is a charter service that is not at all notable. Reads like an advert. WP:WWIN. Wikipedia is not a local grocery/pub bulletin board for ads for local services. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- advertorial content on an unremarkable helicopter charter service; no indications of notability or significance. Content belongs on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was a valid redirect at one time but not worth a stand alone article. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:46, 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 speedy keep. tedder (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Seth Rich[edit]

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

As described at 2nd nomination, there are concerns that this event does not satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Previous nominations were closed with no concensus, but with recommendation that this be submitted post the 2016 US elections. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets "Wikipedia:Notability (events)." The crime "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The story has been mentioned again in the news each time a reward has been offered and has attracted news anaylsis stories. The article has been viewed 63,000 times in the past month[1] compared with 48,000 views for the Lindbergh kidnapping.[2] Much of the interest in the case has been generated by conspiracy theories on the internet, which in turn have been mentioned by mainstream media. But it is irrelevant why reliable sources find the story worth reporting. Without this attention however the crime probably would still be notable as media routinely extensively report cases of middle class people murdered in middle class neighborhoods. TFD (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As already indicated in the previous AfDs the subject fully meets Wikipedia's standards of notability. However, as I mentioned in the last AfD, constant and sustained edit warring has stripped this article of almost all the content indicating that notability. That censorship continues (in fact it looks like the article is in an even worse state that it was in September), but the situation is reversible. Hopefully, now that elections are over, and as the timeperiod between the murder and today increases, all the spurious blp assertions being used to exclude content will become less and less arguable with a straight face, and the article can undergo substantial improvement. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edits aren't wine. They don't get better just because some time has passed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe they are wine, wine in a bottle opened half a year ago! I think it is time to reassess those old edits and arguments that censored sourced content for blp reasons. Their blp arguments might now be sour to even the roughest palette. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Washington Post coverage about how it was an example of the general mens of the 2016 US Presidential Election six months after the fact is lasting enough coverage for me at this point [3]. I'm fine with revisiting in 12-18 months, but when its still getting coverage in major sources the day before this nomination and the main argument is that it has no lasting impact, I find it hard to vote !delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The hierarchy of death is a peculiar thing, and I do not endorse that hierarchy. But there it is. Disproportionate amounts of media attention are paid to various deaths. Sometimes the underlying reason is racist, or sexist, or tinfoilhattist, but I'm not aware that Wikipedia editors are entitled to fight that particular hierarchy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG. This is absolutely notable and certainly well and reliably sourced. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a crime that happened almost seven months ago, it is still getting significant coverage by the Washington Post, a major news outlet, and some local news outlets such as NBC Washington and WJLA. ^Falling_Gravity 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep – How many RfCs do we need? — JFG ^talk 09:01, 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 Withdrawn by creator. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 23:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Gallacci[edit]

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

The article Steve Gallacci lacks sources that are independent of Albedo Anthropomorphics. The Gallacci article has remained unsourced for years and a cursory Google search finds no biographical sources and not much outside cursory mentions in relation to Albedo Anthropomorphics. Gallacci appears to be non-notable. Furry-friend (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - possibly notable. Furry-friend (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to !vote, as a I have a WP:COI, as the current publisher of some of Galacci's past output (Fusion). However, I should note that Galacci and his Albedo work were key in the furry realm, he really invented the Furry, as can be seen here, but his most noted days were pre-WWWeb. For one example I can quickly find, he was cover-featured and interviewed in issue 129 of Amazing Heroes, 1981, as you can verify here and here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I withdraw the proposal, assuming there's at least another interview with him. It would be extremely beneficial if you could source as much of the article to interviews and so on. Your COI is noted but if the information is presented in a neutral tone there shouldn't be any issue. Furry-friend (talk) 23:00, 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 merge to King of the Romanians. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan timeline of heirs and pretenders to the Romanian throne[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG; no reliable sources exist that cover this topic. Spiderone 20:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to King of the Romanians I think it should be included into the King of the Romanians article.Laurentiu Popa (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. This will provide a useful graphic to that article. It has no value as a free-standing one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesrepublik Süddeutscher Staaten[edit]

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

Non-notable politic movement. Anyone can protest or have a manifesto, but I can't see that they've generated significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, and as such they fail WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any reliable sources about the subject. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and nothing found either. Domdeparis (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing encyclopedic about this subject. Xaxing (talk) 12:58, 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 redirect to List of Autobots. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superion[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. The article is mostly comprised of unsourced fancruft, and there aren't really any reliable, secondary sources discussing the character or team in any detail upon searches. The character and group are already included on the current List of Autobots, so a redirect is sufficient. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. Longevitydude (talk) 00:16, 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 merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relic (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least Redirect to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Not only does this concept have no reliable sources to establish notability, but it seems that in the majority of D&D versions, it wasn't even a thing. It was just a generic word used to describe magic items, or used interchangeably with other, similar terms, like "artifact". 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). An unsourced article for such a generic term says it all. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as suggested above. To the artifacts section (a topic which I actually think _could_ meet the GNG). Hobit (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Relic#Relics in Fiction. This is classic IPC content. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). It's about magic items in D&D, but it doesn't establish notability (and Google results turn up nothing good). The IP editor has a point in that this isn't even a thing in many versions of D&D. Still, it's worth a mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 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 redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regalia of Might[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons - No reliable, non-primary sources seem to exist that discuss these items in any meaningful way, and its already included in the current artifact list here on Wikipedia. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:32, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FIRS Senior Men's Inline Hockey World Championships[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard World Championships page for a major sport. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djsasso: on what planet is this a "major sport"? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})
  - The planet where it has had national television contracts. We aren't talking some sport that 10 people take part in. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Djsasso: HAH! Touche. Well said! I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The page is full of redlinks and multiple pretty broken templates. I guess I'm advocating WP:TNT. 99% of the page is taken up by tables that don't actually have any useful data in them. This is my stance on most of the Inline Hockey templates I AFDed (is that a verb? I'm making it one....). --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not going to be sarcastic and ask "But which planet was that?" because then I will look like an idiot if you can show that it was on national TV in some country. Nonetheless, I do need to ask for some proof of this. My weak delete below is predicated on the assumption that there is no sign that this event was noticed by the media, let alone received significant coverage in reliable sources. I could be wrong. Maybe the article title here is not quite correct or maybe the coverage is not in English, either of which could cause my searches to fail to find the coverage. If there is notability then please show it. National broadcast TV coverage in any country would do but we can't just assume there must be notability based on the name phrase "world championship" in the title. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (which I will happily strike if anybody can show that this event was broadcast on national TV in any country). A world championship sounds like it should be notable but we have no references here at all and it is all unverifiable now that the one external link is dead. Maybe it was verifiable when it was written so I won't hold that against it but the lack of anything on the Google News links is a big red flag to me. The media can't ever publish enough minor sports news to satiate its readers and yet I'm not seeing anything for this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 1992 FIRS were the organizing body that brought inline hockey to the olympics as a demonstration sport, ESPN showed some, and broadcast live Pro games primarily from the RHI throughout the '90's. However modern championships are streamed online by FIRS itself. I follow the championships but am undecided on the yearly FIRS championships notability.18abruce (talk) 01:53, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rupp Award[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MVP award of a top professional league of a sport is very clearly notable. And I would note it isn't unsourced. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I stand corrected... It has ONE source. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While logically it seems like it should have an article, I cannot find any sourcing to justify my own opinion and therefore must choose to delete per WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 20:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 PIHA Pro playoffs[edit]

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

One source... Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trivial. Standard season page for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or maybe a very limited merge if anybody can reliably reference anything here of value. This one was referenced, albeit only to primary sources. The links are all dead now but that is not fatal. We should judge it based on the value of the links when they were working. Trouble is they were all primary sources and there is nothing here to show notability even if there is/was verifiability. It looks like non-notable sportscruft to me. Google News is not showing anything obvious and, given how the media loves to publish even very minor sports coverage, that does not look good for the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This is trivia. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIHA Pro playoffs[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this one. This is about what the playoffs are in general rather than a lot of cruft about specific results. It could be a merge target for what little info in the articles about the specific playoffs is worth keeping and can be reliably referenced. I'm not !voting keep on something completely unreferenced but I'm not !voting delete either as unreferenced stubs are legitimate. I don't hold out great hopes that anybody will want to improve this article but there is no harm in leaving that option open. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Professional Inline Hockey Association, which briefly mentions that they have a playoff. (What sports league doesn't?) That section could be expanded slightly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and fails WP:GNG. Very little/no information to warrant a merge. GauchoDude (talk) 21:17, 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 redirect to Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comité International de Roller In-Line Hockey[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The international organizing body of a sport is not Trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with optional limited merge) to the actual international organising body: Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports. We don't need an article about a specific committee within that body unless it is separately notable. The article is unreferenced and the Google links show enough to prove that the committee exists but nothing jumps out to prove it notable. It does not seem to have a website or even a page on the FIdRS site that I can find. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. As User:Shawn in Montreal noted, this particular entity is an committee within an organizing body. I'm not convinced it passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:22, 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 keep. General consensus to keep due to the presence of reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Roller Hockey[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the top organizations in the sport of roller hockey. Clearly notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that it wasn't created by user who created a swath of articles. Nom has been putting that in all his listings dispite the fact that many of them have not been. Plenty of sources on highbeam and google. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage apparent at GNews, HighBeam confirms the notability of this organization, although the article could stand some heavy editing and clearer sourcing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos:That argument seems to be WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If there are sources, provide them here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 01:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not there "must be" sources, there are sources. Just click the findsources links above for HighBeam and GNews and there they are. I can contemplate reducing the number of articles relating to this league by judicious mergers and deletions, but I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that this, the main article about the league, should be deleted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 21:29, 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 keep. Sandstein 08:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to earth[edit]

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

Unreferenced. Contains so little information about the movie that it adds nothing to the encyclopedia (and is not verifiable without references). See film notability guidelines, which this stub doesn't meet.

If a plot summary and review information are added within seven days, may keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buzz Aldrin for now. The movie existed, and was based on his autobiography of the same name, both of which are mentioned in his article. However, I am finding zero mentions of this outside of basic movie database stats. I, so far, have not found a single review. So, I say Redirect for now, but with no prejudice to recreate the article if reviews or other reliable sources come to light. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ 64.183.45.226: No need to recreate later what can be shown as notable and improved now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep I have added some sources to make this stub minimally acceptable. There is more information in the ones I have used, as well as a decent discussion of the events surrounding the production in Aldrin's book “Magnificent Desolation” which can be read here to provide for further expansion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If closed as keep, this should be moved to Return to Earth (film). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So moved and further improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per improvements and sources added. I began some work and certainly more can be done. IE: Toledo Blade. Considering the actors involved back in 1976, this project had enough coverage then to meet WP:NF even now... and sorry, though it can be mentioned in the article of the subject that he wrote a book in 1973 made into a film in 1976, a redirect does not serve to inform our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe enough sources have been found to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 27 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 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Mendonca[edit]

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

Full of primary sources and interviews. Some of the sources have been written by himself. Written to promote herself by an SPA. The article is also promotional in nature. Contains promotional wordings and a list of non notable awards and events which promote her. Mar11 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as it fails reliable sources. Self promotion and primary sources do not meet Wiki guidelines. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:42, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Founders Cup playoffs[edit]

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very standard season article for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has put the league itself,or even this cup, up for deletion. The question is not whether the league or cup is notable. It is whether this specific set of play-offs is notable enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced and probably non-notable sportscruft. I am not seeing Google News hits to suggest it is notable. Given that the media can't get enough of low level sports trivia, I'd expect to see some passing mentions even if this were not notable. Maybe I was not searching exactly the right thing, so I'm not saying that there is definitely nothing to be found, but the lack of anything obvious is enough to suggest it is not going to support its own article. If anything here is notable, reliably referenceable (and not already covered) then I guess it could be merged to Founders Cup (PIHA) (which is also an unreferenced article in need of much work although not an obviously a deletion candidate to my eyes). --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Per nom. The main article, Founders Cup (PIHA) was an uncontested prod. If that's not notable, then a specific season of that should most certainly not have a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphacet[edit]

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

This company is not notable and may not even exist any more. SupremeWikiOverfiend (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry I need some kind person to tag if for me due to crappy computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremeWikiOverfiend (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary, a company that no longer exists can still be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article is too promotional to consider keeping. Sample content:

"Alpha generation platforms have been receiving increased attention as automated trading continues to grow within many key markets. According to the Aite Group, 30% of all European and U.S. stock trades were driven by automatic programs in 2006, and they predict that by 2010, 50% of all U.S. stock trades will be run by automatic programs.

This is pure "marketing brochure" speak. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear business listing sourced by business announcements and their own websites, WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this company - not its size, products, innovation, people who work there... nothing. With apologies to whoever created the page and the people who work at the company, this page doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This belongs to brochures which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. A search online for any other sources doesn't yield much. Xaxing (talk) 14:50, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Saad[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable. The artist does not have a lot of press coverage. Plus no artworks in permanent collections. She has received two awards, but they don't seem to be that important. Susana Hodge (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is bit more than as referenced in the article; I found pretty quickly at least one main stream reliable secondary source. Article also needs balance, I also found pretty quickly her winning one of the awards created some controversy which is available in secondary source/s. I suggest potentially notable but perhaps TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete she may have won these awards but no notable awards and no third party coverage. Creative professionals need wider coverage like in mainstream press or major awards. She has neither. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 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 merge to Nine's Wide World of Sports. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket Show[edit]

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

TV program tagged with unsourced since 2009. Found some mentions in passing of the show, but nothing that I think proves notability of a program which only airs during the 'lunch break' of a sporting event. I'm happy if sports fans can locate reliable sources to establish notability, but I'm not seeing it right now. I'd also support a merge into the broadcaster's sports coverage article or a broadcasting section of an appropriate Cricket article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge up to list of programs in its broadcaster's article. Could not find remotely sufficient for notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nine's Wide World of Sports#Cricket. Given the surprising amount of cultural import the Nine commentary team have, I'm kind of surprised they don't have their own article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Merge into Nine's Wide World of Sports#Cricket. As above, not independently notable enough, but worth keeping the content in the main article about the channel. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Philippines HD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTube channel involving fantasy TV with no content to speak of, and using a high-profile trademark that's kind of shaky to use. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Scott Oswald[edit]

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

He is non-notable. His cases have received some media coverage, but he for himself hasn't received much coverage. The awards mentioned in the article are either regional or from online publications. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - moderately noted CLE lecturer, often in the media, and active in the ABA. What do you think, Newyorkbrad, or SpyLawyer? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparesbox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT. Advertising article for company started in 2014. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences but that is not grounds for deletion. Has multiple independent reliable sources for content. Style is not especially (non/)promotional but that could be fixed anyway. And it secured naming rights within a significant race event. That in itself is potentially notable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences..." means that this subject is "non notable". That aside, this article should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO; just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Awards are trivial, while the content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ if I may. Notability depends on multiple reliable secondary references, not the nature or status of the article subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed sources are not independent and are either company announcements or promo. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Prabhu[edit]

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

All the references are about the TV Show. Notability is not inherited, and the child actor is therefore not inherently notable. Jupitus Smart 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Notability is not inherited and this has no references besides the show. -- Dane ^talk 02:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bascom[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. The work she is doing is honorable, but she does not qualify for a Wikipedia page at the moment. The books she has edited or written have not received any significant coverage either. All the Ghits are trivial mentions or quotes in the media. Susana Hodge (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG. Articles about subject in Huffington Post [4], Psychology Today [5], Voice of America [6] and over 50 non- trivial mentions or quotations in The Atlantic, Business Insider, LA Times, The Guardian, on CNN and ABC News, etc. CBS527^Talk 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources noted above. ABF99 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 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. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rakendu[edit]

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

Google returns results for Rakendu Mouli, another actor/musician. This person has probably acted in a prominent role in a non-notable film and has a few other minor credits. Non notable actor/cricketer. Jupitus Smart 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yazir Saleem[edit]

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

Non notable actor/director. Fails WP:FILM. Did not play the lead role in the movie mentioned in the Wiki page. Jupitus Smart 11:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 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 speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion G11. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation[edit]

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

Unremarkable company with only passing mentions in secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could consider CSD A7 or G11. GoldenRing (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank You for your comment GoldenRing But i want to provide the info that it's a known company for semiconductor industry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.96.89 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this article they have added real source and contents .HSMC are a best source to give the knowledge about their industry. I think it's appropriate to withdraw this AfD from the article. If any one thinks for deletion , so first tell to article owner to remove that content which are looking for the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elandik (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article should not be deleted , This is the first organisation in India who are going to manufacture the semiconductor Products . So, This article should add in Encylopedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranyadas (talk • contribs)

- I've reverted an improper closure by the above editor. ansh666 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clerk note: Saranyadas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Confirmed sockpuppet of Smithtony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smithtony. GAB^gab 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Salvi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously listed, still true: "The notability is in the cases they dealt with. Most of the references are about the cases, not about the firm. The others are mere notices of placement of various lists or appointments or minor local prizes. The article is indistinguishable from what law firms use for advertising." Calton | Talk 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing, in-depth coverage limited to primary sources/press releases or otherwise COI-written. Not seeing how he passe NBIO. He is just a lawyer doing quite well for himself, but not reaching the notability required to be in an encyclopedia, IMHO. PS. Prior AfD closed as no-consensus due to no participation; pinging nominator of last AfD User:DGG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in passing does meet WP:GNG. There must be sources about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too spammy to consider worth keeping. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service or a client brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanju Philips[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: Can't find anything to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Olive Church of God[edit]

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

If this was created today it would be speedied A7. Since it's now 11 years old, it's difficult to conclusively say that all of its revisions definitely qualify for A7 per WP:CSD (and I'm not going to go through them all just to avoid an AfD), but the current one certainly does.

Searches turn up lots of trivial mentions, but basically all appear to be "so and so, who died tragically, was a member of Mount Olive Church of God, and is interred at such and such place". Nothing to indicate notability. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This reads like someone took it directly from a pamphlet which means this is likely and entirely, a WP:copyright violation. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, was not nominated for speedy due to the large number of previous revisions. TimothyJosephWood 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are trivial mentions, as TimothyJosephWood notes, but nothing beyond that. Ok the church exists, is active, hosts fireworks, has people that die and get mentioned in obituaries, but the church itself isn't notable. This article has existed for a long, long time. There was a prior AfD in 2006 that closed as no consensus. But, I think the closer there made a mistake. Two of the keep recommendations there were from single purpose accounts that have never edited before or since. 10 years on, there's still nothing to indicate notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 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. Sandstein 08:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Underwood[edit]

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

This is a problematic article. Firstly, the actor subject (now retired) fails WP:NACTOR as their only notable role was Zoey 101. Second, the primary sourcing at this article is tabloid-fodder scandal, and we don't leave articles on Wikipedia that primarily serve as a virtual Attack page on its subject. This article needs to be deleted (to purge the problematic page history) – after deletion, it can then be replaced by a redirect to Zoey 101. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IJBall's rationale. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:40, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatiha Idmhand[edit]

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While they are definitely secondary -- along the lines of her "day job" -- claims of notability are also possibly being made for her as an author and academic. She doesn't seem to pass the bar there either but those should be considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 5 cites on GS totally fails WP:Prof. Sports sources are negligible. WP:Too soon if ever. Creator needs to study WP:Notability before creating more BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maithili Kabre[edit]

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

A handmade jewellery designer failed to pass WP:CREATIVE. I tried but can't find any significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising given we've not only established these publications willingly and and always publish such obvious PR, but the fact this article itself has nothing but focus in that, emphasizes it's a business listing, the history then also shows nothing else better or different, hence there's nothing genuine in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I got to know where I am wrong. Will make a draft before making it live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapsicumWomen (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CapsicumWomen (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CapsicumWomen: You already created this article in draftspace (Draft:Maithili Kabre) and as well as in your sandbox before posting it in the mainspace but you did not bother to submit it for a review can I know why? GSS (talk|c|em) 06:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Because i am new to Wikipedia, I kept it in draft with no clue for the step ahead. I made a mistake there, should've done a research. Thank you --CapsicumWomen (talk) 06:42, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivist view of the mental[edit]

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

Cant see anything to suggest this merits an article {[WP:GNG]]. Iwas temptd to speedy at as "insufficient context22, since it is perfectly incomprehensible. TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scholar shows this phrase used exactly three times, and two are from the creator. The original paper was published in September 2016 (TOOSOON), and it doesn't look like it's been cited...at all...by anyone. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not enough found to merit notability of this topic. ABF99 (talk) 06:01, 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 speedy. Already deleted by the King of nukes| (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lupendra Madavi[edit]

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

Non-notable person, autobiography, resume. Was nom'd for speedy but an IP editor removed the tag. Drm310 (talk) 14:53, 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 Userfy to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Note to the creator: Please do familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as pointed out. Otherwise the next time you create such an article, it will most likely be deleted. So Why 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furies: Erinyes.[edit]

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

I suggest first that this page should be merged into Erinyes. Failing that, it should be deleted. I prodded it a while back; in response, the editor stated on the talk page: " Furies: Erinyes, is a project that studies the details of Virgil's use of the Furies, as characters, in his available writings, with a comparison to the use of the Furies, as characters, by his contemporaries, fore-runners and other Classical and later authors." I waited to see if the editor would update the page to make this clearer but it is still more like a draft for a dissertation than an encyclopaedic entry. — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the author. I've been busy and unable to get back to edit the User page Furies: Erinyes. I do intend to finish the article and when finished I will be please for it to remain as a single page or for it to be merged, in some way, with another page. The details that I'm looking for are time consuming to find. I will be happy to finish it, given a bit of time, before any final decisions are made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUSTER1965 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FUSTER1965, the article you created is not a "user page", but rather is in the encyclopedia's "mainspace" (i.e part of the encyclopedia proper, see WP:MAINSPACE). To see how to create a user page, you should read: Wikipedia:User pages. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I believe that FUSTER1965 intended this to be a user page, but does not understand how to create one. So I suggest that this be moved to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with moving, but I want to make sure that FUSTER1965 is aware that Wikipedia does not accept original research on Wikipedia. This means that unless this content has already been explicitly stated elsewhere by a reliable source, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. And by explicit I mean that the source has to state "Homer's description of the Cyclops' behaviour, provides an element of confirmation that Hesiod writes about the Furies with the Cyclops - Æschylus (see below) can be deemed to have a similar opinion - in mind", at least in its own words. Anything that you came up with would be considered original research.The quality of your research isn't really something that would be in question - it's just that Wikipedia can only contain research that has been discussed by vetted outlets/people. I also have to share in Iadmc's concerns that this is more of a dissertation than Wikipedia content, especially given its tone (ie, that it's written like a research paper). I just want to caution you that even if this is moved to your draftspace that it would still have to comply with Wikipedia conventions regardless of where you post it. I've written an essay about this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Well, as Erinyes is on exactly the same subject, is better written, better cited, and illustrated, this is a new content fork and as such should be deleted. However, if respected editors believe that the article's creator can make use of the material to make useful additions to Erinyes then userfying could be an appropriate choice. The current text is nearly all quotations, labelled "Notes, Line:", with an initial paragraph which does not seem to add anything to the existing article, and there is off-topic essay-like comparison with the Fates. So personally I'd just delete, but I'm happy to go along with what people feel would be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that it might not have any new info. I'll leave it up to you guys - I haven't done a really indepth comparison of the two articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from nom—I'd support userfying and letting the editor work on it to see if it could eventually be used on Wikipedia in some way. However, I suggest the editor familiarize themself with the policies, guidelines and essays linked on their own talk page and Tokyogirl79's excellent essay on encyclopaedic writing vs academic writing: here — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's Userfy, as I didn't vote earlier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not useful as an article. I'd be ok with userfying, but the author does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works and that we don't do OR. Sandstein 08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings entirely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I haven't checked this article against Erinyes, but it's possible that some of the information here (provided it isn't WP:OR) could be usefully added to that and/or elsewhere. IMO Furies: Erinyes. should not be a standalone article, and needs to go - it's a WP:FORK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also remark that this article is heavily overlinked. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan[edit]

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

Not a notable embassy; lacks coverage in reliable sources. It does not help that we don't have an article on Afghanistan–Turkmenistan relations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no inherent notability of embassies. All the article does is confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomatic missions in themselves aren't notable; as above, it merely notes its address. Mélencron (talk) 06:11, 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 no consensus. The sources are reliable and verifiable, just not enough to establish significant coverage. However, WP:ARTIST #4 is an alternate criterion for notability, and it does not appear to have resolved either way in this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lynch (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Sources provided are both primary. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The author has a COI Flat Out (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable artist; vanity/promotional page. Quis separabit? 23:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the national museum collection which is why I accepted. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the "author has a COI"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately they created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists specifically from Arts Project Australia a single suburban organization they they also created a draft for. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Editor COI is not grounds for deletion. Notability and verifiability of the article content is. And this content seems oaky. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete Two is not several ~~The articles 'Collections' section alone meets WP:ARTIST element #4.~~ Gab4gab (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Brigid Hanrahan and WP:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Berry, I am concerned about the lack of critical reception. Even for artist who technically meet some of the secondary notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, for example being represented in a collection, we still need someone else to write something we can base an article on. I would really like to see some in-depth reviews from reliable, independent sources, and artshub is not an independent source.Mduvekot (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia.

Note that the collection section claims "Lynch’s work is represented in private collections and in the National Gallery of Australia collection and the Stuart Purves Collection". The only part verified (primary source) is that she was one small part of a Stuart Purves collection and that was an exhibition for Australian Galleries [7] ([8]). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this and two others through an NGA collection search for Anne Lynch. I think that's a good source for perm collection. Gab4gab (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The permanent collection requirement says several, that is more than 2, and I see no evidence that is met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and develop~~. This artist is well known in the Outsider art circuit, having shown at Phillis Kind Gallery in NYC, which is the one of the most (if not the most) significant gallery in the U.S. showing Outsider art. I've looked online and there is coverage of her, enough so that the article ~~can be~~. is improved. Please be patient before deleting - ~~I'll work on improving this article but today is a travel day for me, so my time is momentarily limited.~~ Marginalized outsider, vernacular artists with disabilities do not receive equal press and secondary source coverage as do artists in the mainstream who work in the culture industry of commercial galleries and museums. Often their presence and contributions are recorded via oral histories and visual culture, rather than "THE Normative Press. Please consider context.Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of reliable sources, as described above. Just to address some of the comments, while it is true that disabled or unorthodox artists like Lynch can sometimes find it harder to get coverage, verifiability is still a non-negotiable requirement for an article here. This isn't intended to punish people like Lynch, nor is it a comment on the worthiness or otherwise of her art, but rather to acknowledge that it is impossible to write a neutral and comprehensive biography without reliable source material. In this particular case, the sources provided are either just trivial mentions in articles on other topics, or are on websites that have a vested interest in increasing Lynch's profile because they are selling her works. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ravi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted earlier. Non notable actor/director/editor of non notable entities. Fails WP:FILM. Jupitus Smart 10:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it already. While the nominator wrongly quotes FILM as a guideline for deletion (the appropriate guidelines could have been GNG or BASIC or NACTOR or ARTIST or even AUTHOR), this is a classic case of a subject who has considerable sources available on Google but none reliable or with the depth required to qualify on either GNG or SNG. Lourdes 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to help any administrator closing this Afd, I would suggest a delete in lines with WP:BIODEL. Thanks. Lourdes 05:56, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaise Jose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted earlier. Seems to have added an exposition of Malayalam references to swindle editors, with no mention of the actor, but only of the movies. Jupitus Smart 11:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is having valid references and I really request to thoroughly check all references before placing a deletion nomination.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin User:Rajeshbieee created and is the primary, if not only contributor to this article. Jupitus Smart 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Klasra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per cited sources, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It fails to pass the notability. Justice007 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject hosts a very well known show in his country.[9]. His talk shows have gained critical attention and controversy. You should consider JOURNALIST#4, the subject would qualify on notability. Lourdes 17:08, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Mir[edit]

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

Effectively unsourced (external links are no sources).

Reads as self-promo or a special written promo-piece (I received a contract ; Also for ProSieben, Mir told me about ) The Banner talk 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced Biography of a Living Person. That's really all I need to say, because that's a reason for deletion all by itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exemplo347 and the nominator have policy wrong, this is AfD, and WP:BEFORE applies. It's fairly clear through a simple search on this persons name that there are a number of articles with this model as their topic in German magazines. You want to delete it for being unsourced, try WP:BLPPROD, or better yet, fix the article. Note that there is a DE.WIKI article on the subject. --joe decker ^talk 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I looked at the news available and they were simply 2 pages of entertainment news, nothing substantial and they seemed to be focused as social media, hence not substance and nothing for an acceptable article (magazines yes, but not convincing ones). What's currently here is simply for some achievements as a model such as the contestant show, nothing else significant. Also, signs show the GermanWiki is in fact not maintaining itself at all now so they are not an automatic defense. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is known for listing articles never doing WP:BEFORE. Person meets WP:GNG: [10] (Bild), [11] (Aachener Zeitung), [12] (Amica (magazine)), [13] (Express (Cologne newspaper)). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, you are back to your revenge-commenting. You should have applied WP:BEFORE on your own articles before publishing... The Banner talk 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is off topic here. Why posting everywhere where you can how bad I am? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can we just stop the bantering? Sander admittively the only reason you voted here in the first place was because the Banner nominated the article. You're just trying to spite him and start conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TheGracefulSlick: The point is The Banner nominates already for months on a regular basis articles of me, that are always (speedy) kept for not doing WP:BEFORE. And so it's logic I take a look at other articles he nominates to see if there is a trend. And soI told him that at his talk page. After some search where I found easily realible sources I can better reply to this AfD as it might help the discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is more a desperate and disruptive revenge-campaign. The Banner talk 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sander.v.Ginkel and aren't you the same user who will literally have thousands of articles deleted because of poor diligence and BLP violations so who are you to criticize him? If you were unwilling to put any effort into your content, why should other editors? That's laziness. Please stick to the Afd if you are continuing a discussion here. Also, consider having some pride in your work; like I always say, quality over quantity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to discuss editor conduct. If those involved would like to continue such a discussion, do so somewhere else. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promo article with no real significance coming from sources to turn into a worthwhile piece for the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News search yields 7k results. Basically all of them are non-English, but I have a hard time believing that all seven thousand of them are unreliable news outlets. The German version has more than a dozen sources, and although it looks like the article was deleted in 2011, it looks like it was actually restored two months later following further discussion. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Family Enterprises[edit]

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

Suspect that this organisation does not actually exist. Whilst there is plenty of information on its "subsidiaries" (and we have articles on all of them), there seems to be no reliable evidence to suggest that this holding company is a real organisation. The best source available is this Investopedia artilce, which appears to be largely cribbed from the Wikipedia page and was written by a sixteen-year-old contributor. The term is also used, sort of, at this awards page, but here it clear it refers to S.C. Johnson & Sons. The same seems to be true in other instances of the term "Johnson Family Enterprises" online.

See also the comments on the article talkpage by User:Wax86, who claims to represent the company. ~~Whilst Wax86's identity has not been confirmed,~~ I'm inclined to believe them based on my own checks. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Yunshui, Wax86's identity has been verified via e-mail per OTRS ticket:2017011210012798. Mike1901 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete ~~with S. C. Johnson & Son per WP:Before~~. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that the subject, Johnson Family Enterprises, does not exist as it relates to SC Johnson so having a redirect page to the SC Johnson article seems misleading and/or confusing. Wax86 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to make sure I adequately address the question concerning proof. As it was mentioned, I cannot prove a negative but here are some sources that support that the company is family-owned and operated as an independent company:

David Barboza (August 22, 1999) “At Johnson Wax, A Family Passes On Its Heirloom; Father Divides a Business To Keep the Children United”. The New York Times.

Del Jones (December 4, 2002) “Johnson family legacy finds layers of love, loss: 5th generation taking reins at $7B company”. USA Today

CBS News (October 16, 2016) “A family history at SC Johnson”. CBS Sunday Morning

Ellen Byron (March 10, 2016) “How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business”. The Wall Street Journal.

Casillas, Jose C., Francisco J Acedo and Ana M. Moreno. International Entrepreneurship in Family Businesses. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. (pp. 279-286)Wax86 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of sources to support the content it seems a likely hoax. If not, the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources means it fails general notability and WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is not a hoax. In 2006 (the year I became a wikipedian and the year I created this article) I do not recall what source made me feel that this was a valid subject for an international encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised when I realised you were the original author. Just to be clear, I don't for a moment think this was a deliberately fabricated article; merely that it seems to have been created by mistake. No accusation of impropriety intended. Yunshui ^雲 _水 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my indelicate use of the term hoax. Gab4gab (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am SC Johnson's archivist and historian and an established authority on the company's history. I feel deletion is the only course of action given the lack of reliable sources that provide verifiability (WP:V) of the existence of Johnson Family Enterprises as well as support its notability. (WP:GNG, WP:ORG) Wax86 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Wax86 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article provides no evidence that such a company exists, and Google finds very little. There is this page, but it appears neither independent not reliable. Maproom (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very nature of a family business holding company precludes the existence of reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Being privately held grants privacy. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source material. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:59, 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. per WP:G5 - deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 20:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugaas Yaasiin Ugaas Cabdiraxmaan[edit]

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

Lacks verifiability, no evidence or references provided and the chieftain doesn't seem to be notable. No English sources mention the chieftain. Buraomagnificent (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "No English sources mention the chieftain.", there doesn't have to be ie. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.". Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable and no sources added. The content is all made up. Buraomagnificent (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether sources are in English or not, they are still required in some form. As it stands, the reader can't tell if this is a real traditional leader or a complete hoax. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryka Aoki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

First nomination resulted in deletion. I don't think this iteration provides any more evidence of notability. Owen (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first AfD was a farce with no one participating in it except the nominator. It probably should have been relisted. That aside, there is both critical response to Aoki's work, so we can say she passes WP:CREATIVE with reviews and biographies on her, so she also passes GNG. 1) Lambda Literary Review, Columbus Dispatch Review (behind paywall), 3) there is also a biography on her and a review of her work in Guide To Literary Masters & Their Works (behind paywall), 4) She is part of this Guardian article, her work is part of a book noted by the Advocate, and short bio by Curve behind paywall. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be reliable sources addressing this person; I'd say this is notable.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:01, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain (inline hockey)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deleting but be aware that there's a whole bunch of these for various sports listed at Captain (sports). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever an inline hockey captain does is clearly just a clone of Captain (ice hockey), from which the sport derived. So I'm going to take the liberty of listing this particular roller hockey Afd at the ice hockey deletion page, accordingly. Others should not be added there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK of Inline hockey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. As User:Ajf773 noted it's a WP:CFORK, although I believe of Captain (ice hockey) like User:Shawn in Montreal mentioned. Ultimately, this article adds no value to merge to either existing articles. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 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 Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn due to pages needing to be separately nominated and tagged. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roller Hockey International teams[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this user has tried to wipe inline hockey out of existence on Wikipedia. RHI was a nationally covered league on prime time for a number of years. The teams in this league were covered extensively in the media. A quick search easily shows there was all kinds of coverage for most if not all of these teams. These mass deletion nominations are going to cause a huge amount of work to clean up. This league was the top level inline league in the world during the time the sport was a huge craze. I would also point out that most of theses were not created by a single user. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- THese articles have been uncited for over 7 years... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forget the particular page that explains that Afd is not for cleanup. WP:BEFORE C1 indicates if articles can be cleaned up then they are not Afd candidates. And section D indicates that it is up to the nominator to do a good faith look for sources for anything they nominate. At the rate these articles have been thrown up, I am having a hard time believing you have done a search through appropriate news archives for sources (since most of these teams pre-date high internet usage.) Though even a quick google search turns up stories on a number of these. I would also point out Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Just because another editor has not yet come along to take on the work of sourcing them better does not mean they cannot be sourced. We are supposed to judge AfDs on how the pages can be, not only on how they are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, procedurally if nothing else. The articles have not been tagged for Afd. This is not the way to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Espn coverage easily meets GNG, obviously no attempt to even check. This NY Times article discusses the sports decline, but highlights what a big deal the sport was; featured at the Barcelona Olympics, national tv coverage, etc. And to be frank, I am sick and tired of this "large swath" nonsense. The list creator created 3 articles, and the contained articles have multiple creators, some of whom are still active. I don't know who it persuades, but it is clearly inappropriate conduct.18abruce (talk) 00:41, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park View Office Tower[edit]

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

Not notable building Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable building. Importance asserted: "the first green building in Central Asia", in fact! --do ncr am 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It attained a green certification; buildings do that all the time (and many more will after this one in the region). Remove that and you have yet another office building with the same facilities as most office buildings have. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be very appropriate for the article to define what is meant by "green", to contrast vs. many pre-historic huts, historic homes made of natural materials of this region, etc. So do explain that it is the first new construction LEEDS-certified building of any kind, or building of some type, and be precise about the region. It is appropriate to tag the article to ask for more precision. Being the first Green building in Central Asia still sounds like quite a strong assertion of notability, and Mrschimpf's comment seems to confirm that details are available. --do ncr am 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source says it "received a “very good” BREEAM certificate". Trouble is, it is the third out of five passing grades ("outstanding" and "excellent" are better), and is defined as "top 25% of UK new non-domestic buildings (advanced good practice)".[14] That does not seem remarkable to me. I'd change my mind if more coverage could be found. GregorB (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just being the first green building in asia (kazakstan isnt really asia but..) probably isnt enough for notability but it has recieved quite a decent amount of coverage in kazak and russian national sources, a good example being this forbes article: [15], and here are a few more [16] [17], IBM russia also have their hq in the new building. I think it passes WP:GNG, and this could be more proven if someone could check for russian/kazak sources in the appropriate languages as this would further assert my point. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coleshill[edit]

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

Local politician that hasn't received sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline or the politician-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds about this. The standard for city councillors to pass WP:NPOL, just for the fact of serving as city councillors, is that the city whose council they served on is a global city — which Glasgow technically is, but it's in the "Gamma" (i.e. lowest) rank of that set alongside places such as Valencia, San Jose, Marseille, Cincinnatti, Guadalajara, Tallinn, Vilnius, Milwaukee and Ljubljana where by and large there isn't a concerted effort actually being undertaken to actually get most of the city councillors into Wikipedia the way there is for the likes of New York City and San Francisco and London and Toronto. So it would be enough if there were more substance and sourcing being shown than there actually is — but as written, this only just barely says anything more than "he exists", and is parked on a single source rather than enough sourcing to actually clear WP:GNG. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to British media coverage than I've got can actually WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard — but for the moment, I have to go with delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantial than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per [18] [19], he was Argyll and Bute's original Lib Dem MP candidate in 2001 before he stepped down, which is at least something more than councillor. However, WP:NPOL says that unelected candidates are not guaranteed notability, and I'm struggling to find much else on this fellow. "Pepper" @ 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The basis of WP:POLITICIAN is that there is a presumption that (sufficient) coverage exists about the subject for a particular office. As a collective, we assume that sufficient coverage exists for individuals who hold national or sub-national office. We also presume that substantive coverage exists for big-city mayors (especially those who are independently elected). I do not think the same presumption exists for city councilmembers (and I think that the global cities distinction for city councilmembers is not a useful criteria). As Bearcat recently wrote, WP:NPOL (for elected officials, when coverage is not presumed) "is achieved in one of two ways: either the coverage nationalizes into sources far beyond the geographic range in which such coverage is merely expected, and/or the local coverage volumizes to the point where a much more substantial article can be written." In this case, it does not appear there is either the volume of substantive coverage, nor does there appear an expansion of geographic scope of coverage. ---Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A substantially unreferenced biography (other than the election result which I have added) on a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. (See also Glasgow_City_Council_election,_2012#Ward_7:_Langside.) Media searches return in-role mentions from the subject's time on Glasgow Council, but he does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria and I am not seeing the substantial coverage which would be needed were he to have broader WP:BASIC notability for an article. AllyD (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looked plausible, so I set out to source it. Found very little. Articles that cmae up on a Proquest News Archive search were few, and all routine. Tried searching for his academic career, but found only a single chapter in a book on Devolution. Also, source #1 is not really about about Colesville, but about the fact that the politician he replaces had been the "longest serving politicla leadder in the UK" at the time he stepped down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 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 , consensus seems to be that WP:ONEEVENT applies, especially given that the corresponding article on Norwegian Wikipedia was also deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Tolg[edit]

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

Notable for One Event. The article for document.no already contains a section about this person that duplicates this article almost word-for-word. Per the One Event guidelines, this article should be turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of the article for her employer. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section on Hanne Tolg in the document.no page after first creating the Hanne Tolg page. And, yes, the wording is similar and should be adjusted. I would favor moving the discussion from the document.no page to the Hanne Tolg page rather than deleting the Hanne Tolg page. Hanne Tolg is a notable writer in Norway; in 2016 she topped the list of shared news stories on two dates (Dec 24 and May 27) Storyboard 2016 This makes her one of the most-read/most-shared Norwegian journalists, so this is not a one-event article. Also, the campaign against her did not stop when she resigned, it is ongoing. Do a search on her name to find it. Geringe (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did many searches, and yes, the debate might be ongoing but it still counts as One Event Exemplo347 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the campaign/debate being one event. Anyway, I've revised the text on the document.no page, duplicate wordings have been removed and a link to the Hanne Tolg page is there instead. Also, I've added information about rankings of her articles Geringe (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been a bit premature - that text will probably need to be re-added if this article does not survive this AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be reinserted. However, I believe Hanne Tolg is a notable person and that her article should remain in Wikipedia. Geringe (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you wrote the article in the first place it's only natural that you believe that. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The campaign against Hanne Tolg is core to the freedom-of-speech detbae in our increasingly internet-based societies. Also Hanne Tolg is one of the most-read political commentators in Norway today, as shown by the provided statistics. As such, this is not a 'one-event' article. Howcome (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the things that are core to this debate are Wikipedia's policies. It's not a freedom-of-speech issue here - it's Wikipedia's policy that people who are only notable (not famous, not popular, but notable) for one event should, where possible, be included in a more appropriate pre-existing article. Please don't try to muddy things by making it about anything other than the issue I raised in the nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and assume good faith. My comment addressed your claim of being a "one-issue" article and there's no need to attach "muddy" to it. Howcome (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well let's agree to disagree that a simple word like "muddy" is somehow uncivil and move on. If you could explain, strictly by sticking to matters of Wikipedia's policies, why the subject of this article does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT then please feel free. This discussion is about this article and Wikipedia's policies - it's not about any other external issues. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been extended since the WP:ONEEVENT nomination was filed. In addition to the campaign incident, I have added reference to Storyboard's statistics. In these, one can see that Hanne Tolg tops the lists of articles shared on two separate days in 2016, making her a notable writer in Norway. Geringe (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a single sentence, linking to those stats - like I said before, popularity and notability aren't the same thing. If anything, all those stats prove are that her articles were popular on those specific dates. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the short length of the paragraph is your remaining issue, this can easily be fixed through normal editing. Remember, deletion is a last-resort meassure as per the guidelines Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion Geringe (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ONEEVENT is the issue with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A nearly identical article with the same references on no.wikipedia.org is also currently up for deletion. I think that if that is deleted, which is probably likely, then we have our answer. MB 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been keeping an eye on that one (thanks to a popular, search-engine-based machine translation service!) and it seems like the arguments are pretty similar - even down to the same two people !voting Keep. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Norwegian-language version of this article has been deleted, see here for info. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable blogger. The subject of this article was already found to be not notable and the article was deleted on the Norwegian Wikipedia (with its considerably lower notability requirements and greater knowledge of Norwegian topics); as the closing admin at the Norwegian Wikipedia noted, no established editors supported keeping the article. Also note that the article seems quite biased in its presention of the conflict with her former employer, which constitutes the bulk of the article, and that the only proper third party source included, an article titled North Wales fire service employee quits amid investigation into alleged posts on far-right website in the North Wales Daily Post local newspaper, doesn't even mention her by name. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear 1E case, that even the no.wp deleted the article is telling. Sandstein 17:18, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scared to Be Lonely[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG and is WP:TOOSOON - not yet released; no indication when it will appear. Redirect to Garrix. Karst (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep - The song exists and I have recently heard on the radio that it will be played tomorrow. In light of this new information, I've changed my !vote to SNOW keep Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per above, the song will be released on the 27th. Notable per wide coverage (for a soon-to-be released song). - TheMagnificentist 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - it is being played on popular radio stations and is therefore notable Patient Zero^talk 13:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep May have been created earlier than necessary - however it is released now, so it's best to keep it. TheKaphox T 17:28, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usercart[edit]

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

This appears to me to fail a number of criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article:

WP:NSOFTWARE
WP:CORPDEPTH for the corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written
WP:GNG for the both the software and corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written

This page has been deleted a number of times:

15:52, January 18, 2017 Ritchie333 deleted page Usercart (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
16:09, December 15, 2015 Jimfbleak deleted page Usercart (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: posted by the company, spam)
00:08, January 9, 2009 Rjd0060 deleted page Usercart (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Non notable software.)
19:24, November 10, 2008 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Usercart (G11: Blatant advertising)

There has not yet been a formal deletion discussion. I guess the article could be SALT-d, but I think it should be discussed before that, even if only to allow future WP:G4 speedy deletion.
As always, please do tell my why I am wrong about this, or about anything at all about my Wikipedia edits. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources indicating notability. The single-purpose account that created the article and has been adding links to other sections claims in this edit that the company has a turnover of 1.6 million pounds, and is one of the most popular ecommerce engines in the UK, both claims without a source. I can only find this link about a defunct company. The user titled a link to the product's contact page as "Notable software citation", which looks like an attempt to mislead. Unless sources can be found, a clear-cut case of non-notability. Greenman (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This needs independent sources but has none. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article creator sent me a note that said a piece of software you download and put on a web server is not technically "web content" as defined under the strict rules of WP:CSD#A7, and while that may be a point, at best that'll just mean we end up here instead. Anyway, a complete blank under news and book sources, and absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever. I'm curious what does this software give me that a typical Wordpress shopping cart plugin doesn't? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As impressive as it is that they had the creativity to claim 11k downloads on their website, and then cleverly cite their own site as "Notable Software Citation", and claim to be one of the most downloaded such programs in the UK (as if geography is important), it's probably more impressive that an open web search only returns about 300 results of any type. I'm pretty sure nearly any word-letter combination beats that. For science: "Antelope Y" gets 15k results, "Beard R" 68k, "Unemployment S" 17k, and "Backspace L" 1k (thanks random word generator). TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I have no idea why the nom though it was a good idea to remove my speedy delete tag from the article and instead bring it here to waste everyone's time, but in any case here is my vote. Shameless advertising of an unnotable subject. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:48, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions on the Cancellation of WITS Academy[edit]

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

Most of the material in this article is unsourced, We certainly do not need a standalone article on this topic, as what little info is relevant can be added to the main WITS Academy page. Honestly though, this article seems to balance itself on a couple of tweets... talk about flaky sourcing. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created in conjunction with a series of vandalistic edits, each one adding several sports-team navboxes to an article on a children's television program. Frankly, the instant article probably could have been "G3" speedy-deleted as blatant vandalism and/or hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G3 – this was created by what appears to be a vandalism-only account (that I'm shocked hasn't already been blocked as a vandalism-only account!). Anyway, not an independently notable topic – it would belong at WITS Academy if sourcing could be found for it (which it won't be...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CSD#G3/WP:HOAX: TorontoON (talk · contribs) is pretty obviously a sockpuppet of HornetsMike (talk · contribs) who made the same kinds of edits to WITS Academy before being blocked earlier this month. --Closeapple (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reported as sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HornetMike --Closeapple (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Oh God no; WP:FANCRUFT. Whatever the socking nonsense going on, this is complete garbage. As it is, it's a kid's TV show. Those get cancelled all the time, and it's boilerplate for the cast and crew to say 'we're sad to see it go' at this point. I've removed the sports team rubbish at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samad mir[edit]

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

Recreation of an article Samad Mir salted by @RHaworth:. Probably useful to salt "Samad mir" and "samad mir" as well. Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am grand son of poet samad mir. I solemnly affirm that all the facts written are absolutely correct. I have made two Android apps on samad mir available in play store. My father who was samad mir's eldest son, is the source of information giving in this article. All facts are correct.( Dr Shakeel Ahmad Mir grand son of poet samad mir nambalhar Kashmir mobile +919906034025) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeel513 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The initial draft was badly sourced to blogs and wikis (and I assume the salted version was even worse), but plenty of independent book sources describe Mir as having been a significant poet. I've added a couple of sources to the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per McGeddon and this book. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:58, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Kelley[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation, still fails GNG and NBASKETBALL as long as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals.ph[edit]

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

Site seems dead (fell off Alexa graph last April), and all we have here is promotional language, generic history, and uncited fluffy claims. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are poor and I am not finding better on this website. I found one passing mention of rivals.ph as one of several sponsors of a poker tournament (Manila Bulletin 2014 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but would have expected more if the subject was notable, as Highbeam has decent inclusion of Philippines media. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are only announcements with nothing becoming genuine substance, and there's simply nothing else in this but a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Louis[edit]

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

Just fails WP:NHOCKEY but otherwise also appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources (signings, trades, etc.). Yosemiter (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 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) 06:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superficially qualifies under WP:NATHLETE as the Elite Ice Hockey League is the "top professional league" in UK but for a Canadian player, NHL would be the correct league, and he didn't even get his cup of coffee there. All other coverage falls under the category of WP:ROUTINE transactions - not even game reports. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NHOCKEY is part of and supersedes the basic NATHLETE. Yosemiter (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's played 37 games in the EIHL so far,[20] so he satisfies NHOCKEY #1. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy NHOCKEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Clarityfiend: Incorrect, the EIHL can only be used to qualify via criterion #4 of NHOCKEY as further explained in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. These leagues have been assessed by their independent secondary coverage into the tiers as described. Yosemiter (talk) 02:00, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Conference Championship (PIHA)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:42, 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) 06:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable league/conference. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 20:39, 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 redirect to List of Pinky and the Brain episodes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Warners[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:EPISODE. Was a redirect for 9 years, before it was reverted. Best as a redirect, but ip editor does not agree. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as nothing establishing genuine substance and it's obvious since we're not an episode guide like IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 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) 06:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as above. The article is nothing but a very brief synopsis followed by a bunch of unsourced trivia. The individual episode was not notable, as demonstrated by the complete lack of reliable sources that come up when doing searches. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Geeks[edit]

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

Not seeing, nor could I find any significant independent sources to satisfy notability. Nearly all current references are self-published, searching online didn't reveal other notable publication coverage. It's possible the coverage around the Buddhist Geeks Conference may warrant a page/stub on that topic specifically. Drewmutt (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 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 02:46, 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) 06:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though with the caveat that it may be ending. The existing sourcing is atrocious, but a mild WP:TROUT to the nominator for not finding "significant independent sources." I did an extremely cursory search and by the second page of results found articles about them not only in the Wired source cited, but also in The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Tech Times, and Tricycle (which is a major mainstream Buddhist magazine). Those are clearly independent, reliable sources that establish adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 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. Doesn't seem like a useful search term. (Unless "first" is actually part of the name, and not merely descriptive?) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Roller In-line Hockey World Championship[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a reference but it is a primary source. It claims to be a world championship which sounds like it might have a chance of being notable but the Google links don't seem to offer anything to support it. So, probaly a delete unless anybody finds any better RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 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) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Per nom and reasoning above. I could also see this moved into a catch-all section on the governing body's page, Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports, until enough evidence that it warrants a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:43, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strat Don[edit]

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

No sources to demonstrate qualifies under WP:BAND and compliance with WP:GNG rests on one short article about a single. Other sources social media or otherwise not WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 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 02:30, 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) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Kaye[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced biography of an anaesthetist, whose only apparent claim of notability is that the anaesthetists' professional organization named a couple of things after him following his death and the fact that a non-notable local history museum holds some of his former knick-knack collection. There's really very little here of any substance beyond that, with the article otherwise taken up entirely by routine biographical details that have no bearing on notability whatsoever. The two sources cited here are just being used to support his date of birth and the existence of the museum collection, rather than anything that might get his career over the notability standard for medical professionals, and both of them are incomplete citations (my favourite: "Volume 17, Melbourne University Press", but failing to specify Volume 17 of what), making it nearly impossible to actually verify whether he's the actual subject of either source or just namechecked within it. Further, this was overwritten almost a year ago with a biography of a completely different person whose claim to encyclopedic notability was even weaker and even more poorly sourced than this, yet it took this long for anybody to notice the fact -- which says something about the amount of traffic this is actually generating. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced and substanced much better than this, but there's just no meat here in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nominator's comments. Old articles like this keep floating to the surface - it always surprises me that they survive for so long with such weak references! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't get past the hurdle. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough to establish notability. From [21]: "he edited Practical Anaesthesia (1932), the first Australian textbook on the subject", caused the establishment of the Australian Society of Anaesthetics" largely as a result of his lobbying", "He collaborated with Robert Orton and Douglas Renton in Anaesthetic Methods (1946)", was elected a fellow of the faculty of anaesthetics, Royal College of Surgeons, ASA museum named after him since 1956. This [22] add that he published over 200 articles and books, received the Orton Medal in 1973. This [23] from US National Institute of Health is another source to establish notability. Here is another online biography [24]]. Note that these online biographies have themselves bibliographies of sources which could be used to improve this article. AFD is not cleanup. The article is labeled as a stub and needs much improvement. But the topic is notable. MB 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, enough to establish notability [25]. This is the "Volume 17" that was mentioned in the original sourcing - took a few seconds to establish with a Google search. Clearly notable in the anaesthetics field, as one of its pioneers in Australia in the 1930s. Also one of the founding members of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists. Bearcat I cannot see any evidence in the page history of the "overwriting" you mention - do you have any diffs?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 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 02:29, 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) 06:10, 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Balázs Horváth[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Refs seem to point to the fact he is a compassionate veterinarian. Unable to determine the location details of environment prize after extensive search. Most links are blogs but with some coverage. Could be notable? scope_creep (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume. I can't see any more evidence of WikiNotability in the Hungarian article and its references than in the English one - which is, none at all. Egon Schmidt looks as if he could be notable, but I can't find any evidence that recipients of the prize named after him are notable per se. I suspect also that Ferencvárosi Kutyatartók Érdekvédelmi Civil Szervezete might not pass WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not able to make head or tail of all these Hungarian references, so that's a bit of a hindrance in assessing notability... :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use Google Translate or better Bing Translate on the pages the reference are linked, and then have a read, determine if you think the ref is good enough for the article, and that the refs make the articles subject notable. There is no magic about it, only work. scope_creep (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the Egon Schmidt page, but couldn't determine how valid or prestigious it was. If it was international then certainly he would be notable. If the editor could come in and provide some guidance. scope_creep (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 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) 06:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD 118598[edit]

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

Not notable as per WP:NASTRO. Well below naked eye brightness, no publications specifically concerning this star, just a handful of entries in large surveys. One implicit claim to notability might be the solar analog angle, although the article itself (own research?) appears to nix the idea and there is no supporting citation. Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Transwiki to Wikiversity I generally consider myself as an inclusionist especially when coming to subjects regarding astronomical objects and hacker incidents. But in this case I think that this article is better suited as a material on Wikiversity where original research are allowed. We haven't developed even a decent form of interstellar travel to explore the nearest star Proxima Centauri as of 2017, let alone the subject star and its surroundings so who knows if someone found something significant near the star (ranging from an exoplanet to something outlandish like a suspected Dyson sphere, remember the Tabby's star?). If something significant is found regarding the star, more power to the folks at Wikiversity on whether to transwiki it back to here or not, the period from the time I offered this opinion to the time when something significant or two is found regarding the star may range from days to even centuries or longer. In the case of the period spanning a range of decades, centuries or even longer, I would seriously doubt that whether Wikipedia or even the whole Wikimedia project would remain strong beyond the foreseeable future because of my experience with some deletionist editors when they nominated to delete the first articles I've created on here. I even considered to leave Wikipedia for good and try to tell every other people who may think to start a Wikipedia article. In fact, I think that they are slowly ruining the Wikipedia project by turning it into a Britannica 2.0, an antithesis of Jimmy Wale's ideals. But for now, in January 4th of year 2017, it's WP:TOOSOON on Wikipedia to include the subject as a separate article. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Jimmy Wales, and, if he has any principles, they are not necessarily Wikipedia's principles, which are decided by the editing community within very broad parameters decided by the Wikimedia Foundation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may only agree with you on only one thing that the subject doesn't have enough significance to gain a consensus to include it as a separate Wikipedia article yet, but if only delete the article itself, people would have to exhaustively use Google to put together information regarding this star, potentially damaging user experience of the researcher. In this case, I repeat my position that it'll be transwikied to Wikiversity.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning.

~~So what, exactly, does this article have to do with Wikiversity? Where, exactly, would it go? --Calton | Talk 17:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~A subpage under the "List of stars" page in the astronomical section in Wikiversity. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, I agree with all points, I see no real errors in the statements. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "solar twin" aspect cuts the mustard. What interests people about possible solar twins is that they might have "Earth twins" orbiting them, but the evolutionary history of any possible planet orbiting a star in a multiple star system would be expected to be completely different from that of the Earth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: for now I'd suggest redirecting it to Solar analog, where it is listed in a table. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus, it was removed from the list in the solar analog article in October. As I suggested to Astro, a more appropriate redirect would be Star system#Triple. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest a Merge/Redirect to a single row in List of stars in Hydra. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although a redirect to a list would make some sense, this star is not currently in List of stars in Hydra and that list is specifically of notable stars so almost by definition every star on it is deserving of an article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like a solid article about star. It is really a shame this is even considered for deletion. Fotaun (talk) 20:23, 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) 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 300,000,000 years younger than our star (the Sun). If life on an Earth-like planet orbiting it is following the same timeline as Earth, in 300,000,000 years there will be a sentient being on that planet writing on their Wiki about how 300,000,000 years earlier there was probably a Wiki-building life form here, but bemoaning that we will likely be long gone. It's like ships passing in the night that is 300,000,000 years long. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the ocean is 900,000,000,000,000 miles wide. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~or redirect to Solar analog.~~ As the nominator correctly points out, this star fails all notability criteria under WP:NASTRO. As for the solar analog argument, I searched the scholarly literature for mentions of this star, and it has not received significant attention for that (or any other) reason. If we disregard the notability criteria for stars like this, then we'd be flooded with potentially hundreds of millions of stubs which merely duplicate information from astronomical catalogues. ~~As for the proper outcome of this AfD, I don't really have a strong preference between deleting and redirecting. I would support either outcome.~~ Astro4686 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD 118598 fails the solar analog test on a fundamental level because it is part of a multiple star system. It would most appropriately redirect to Star system#Triple. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I have changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your reply, Jack. You're correct about not redirecting to Solar analog. I don't see much point in redirecting such a specific object to an article as general as Star system#Triple, so I now vote to delete. Astro4686 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in Hydra. Nothing much about this star attracts attention, the content can easily fit into a row in list of stars in Hydra where I believe it's supposed to have its own (currently nonexistent) row. ~ KN2731 {talk} 15:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Generated Solutions, Inc.[edit]

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

All of the sources are Press release and primary sources. The company is non notable. Possible COI. Mar11 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam / office directory. One would think that a 7,000+ employee company could be notable, but I could not find any sources that were not PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 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) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. Thus is too new, in an industry rampant with new outfits who call themselves call centers. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 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 redirect to VideoBlocks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GraphicStock[edit]

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

WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources. But actually the company is not notable at all. All of the sources are trivial mentions. It is WP:TOOSOON Mar11 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to VideoBlocks as the parent company. I'm not sure if the latter is notable itself, but seems like a good enough target for now and this would avoid recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 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) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MiniLyrics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, no significant coverage in reliable sources and much of this article is just out-of-place WP:TRIVIA. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only apparent link to WP:RS is 404, and searches don't turn up anything significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 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 01:59, 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) 06:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are company sites, forums and download sites which are not independent. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage, with the marginal exception of this short Lifehacker piece: http://lifehacker.com/400044/minilyrics-automatically-fetches-and-displays-lyrics-for-your-media-player - on its own insufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:39, 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 delete per WP:SNOW and as a hoax. I've given the article's creator a WP:NOTHERE block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chivas USA Youth[edit]

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

Team with questionable notability, not sure how we go over kids sports teams, however it was just founded this year. Wgolf (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxing alarms are going off; Chivas USA went down in flames two years ago and the 'sourcing' uses a well out-of-date 2015 article, along with a link to another soccer club (here Club Necaxa's page), and most of the 'players' here are red-links or just link to other subjects who are obviously not youth soccer players. Finally, I doubt an American extension of a Guadalajara soccer club would use Pompano Beach, Florida as their base due to a lack of a Mexican-American population base in Florida. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of the names exist-check even the blue links. I already tagged one of the creators articles as a db-hoax. Wgolf (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a misuse as a webhost and there's absolutely nothing for our policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Donovan[edit]

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

Promotional page for a non-notable entertainment promoter. There are no sources, and there's a good reason for this: I found exactly 3 mentions in what could be considered reliable sources (a 1972 Billboard article, a 1994 LA Times article, and a 1998 NY Times article), and all 3 are just that, a single mention in an article about something else entirely. Reads like a vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past practice We almost always delete articles about promoters and producers, since they are so common, especially when sourcing them is so difficult. Right now as it stands, it's mostly a wall of text of trivia and boasting about his connections to famous people. I'd rather delete and start over with this unsourced BLP, unless somebody can fix it, pronto. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainment promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 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 merge to Arron Banks. No independent notability established. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westmonster[edit]

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

Non-notable website, no coverage, didn't even exist at the time this article was created, according to its own content. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I reckon there's a good chance this will become notable in the not-too-distant future, but until then it should be merged into Arron Banks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given it's bankrolled by Banks, it's only a matter of time before it takes off. Alligators1974 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend that you read WP:CRYSTAL. The pertinent question here is whether it is notable now. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've heard of it and no doubt it will drive many Wikipedia editors crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article as it stands. Whilst I accept that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the amount of information on this page would be undue weight on Banks' article, in my opinion. HelgaStick (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Promotional spam. Citing a YouTube video does nothing to enhance the quality of the article. "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. " WP:WEB. Lame Name (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – echoing Adam9007. To keep would go against WP:CRYSTAL. Notability is not established at this point. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mohajer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability. WP:BIO1E No articles about him. Sources are about others, not him, just his Huff Post profile. He's not well known at all. Wrote an essay in the HuffPost alleging the Russians installed Donald Trump as president. Essay was widely read. At most he's a one eventer. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. He may also be creator of the article. See WP:COI. Here's an interview he did [26] SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cited in Mohajer's piece is written by Kathleen Klenetsky, not Lyndon LaRoche. Furthermore, his article cites to at least twenty sources.[Post] Fairly sufficient evidence that there is newsworthiness here. This seems to be a biased opinion based on misstatement of fact.

Bros4America (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not based on 'newsworthiness' they are based on notability of the subject of the article. He's got none to justify an article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability. WP:BIO1E SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnotable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shintani Tadahiko[edit]

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

A professor who doesn't pass WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOLAR, highest cite count being 9. Had originally speedied, which was contested after some work was done on the article, but searches turned up virtually zero, although he has quite a few published works, but nothing seems to be in-depth about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that our colleagues at the Japanese Wikipedia have seen that he should have a page since 2009, suggests that in Japan he is regarded as notable. The fact that he has published on a number of languages for which there is no other, or almost no other, source, alone means that he has had a significant impact in his field. As for citation rates, it is clear that Google rather under counts these in Japanese and for sources not on line, so the count of 9 you cite should be taken cum grano salis. Tibetologist (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is a famous Japanese linguist with many published works. That there is an article on him on the Japanese Wikipedia, and that he is extensively referenced on the English Wikipedia are evidence of his notability. BabelStone (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shintani is cited in at least thirteen English Wikipedia articles and is also cited in the Arabic, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, and even Ilocano Wikipedias. He is an authority on multiple languages in multiple language families, and wrote key publications on some of those languages. It makes little sense to have articles on those languages without an article on the man who introduced them to the scholarly world. Amritavira (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF. But I would still like to see better sources that are accessible in English. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Subject's field is clearly under-cited in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He is a notable linguist in his field, and his works are cited many times in English Wikipedia articles. Deleting the article just creates a bunch of redlinks on those articles -- where's the benefit of that? BabelStone (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RS that shows this fellow is notable? The field being 'under-cited" doesn't justify an article. If he is a notable linguist, show the RS for that. I'd be happy to change to Keep. Without reliable coverage of him, the article fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three more references to the article by reliable sources that mention Shintani's work. The article was in a very poor state when it was created, with no references or categories, so I am not at all surprised it was nominated for deletion, but I think there is now enough references to indicate that the subject is notable. BabelStone (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article improvements. I believe that the article demonstrates subject's notability as an academic at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There needs to be sources that are about this fellow, not sources that mention him. If he is notable, it's not a passing mention. What they do on the Japanese Wiki does not necessarily translate here. There needs to be sources we can all access. I will check Google books, but until there are sources, this cannot be closed. He either has sources about him, or he doesn't. If not, then it has to be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Japanese Wikipedia for this name and there is no article about this fellow under that name. It returns a red link here SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: Academics can be notable under WP:PROF instead of WP:GNG, in which case the requirement for significant coverage is a lot looser. The Japanese article is located at ja:新谷忠彦. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks, I know about the rule on professors. Thanks for finding this. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I started the page so it is no surprise I am in favor of keeping it, my reasons, already on his talk page are points all touched on above. In particular, I find the argument that a number of languages are only known of through this man's work as means eo ipso that he is an notable as they are. Tibetologist (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - retired full professor in an important field, and based on improvement, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Admittedly the case for a keep here is lacking in substance, but so is the argument for deletion. Google Scholar is not the be-all and end-all of WP:PROF#C1, it has many shortcomings, and clearly it's not working very well for a scholar who a) primarily publishes in Japanese and b) did most of his work pre-internet. Since I can't read Japanese there isn't a lot to go on either way, but on the basis of having a eight-year-old article on ja-wiki I'll err towards !voting keep. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I was thinking the same thing and only changed from delete to keep because of the prof thing. But not having reliable sources about him we can read, means we really can't verify his notability. And since he does have a wiki article, and there does not seem to be any real reference to him in English, I still think he should be deleted, even with the trend to keep. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- English-language sources are not a requirement within en.wiki. The content of the article is most definitely not a hoax, and I do see some sources that discuss the subject's work as a linguist: Lai Su Thai, as well as many citations: Gbooks preview. It's thus very likely that additional sources exist in Japanese. On the balance of things, I believe that the subject passes ACADEMIC and/or AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I'm not saying they're a requirement. I'm saying we can't verify his notability. And there are no sources just about him. It's all mentions, nothing in depth. I will add, that his area of expertise does not lend itself to widespread coverage, even among academics, it's a very esoteric field. I couldn't find anything at Oxford, though I'm sure there's something in Bodleian. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For academics, we need sources about their work, which I believe are sufficiently present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hernick[edit]

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

Political candidate who fails WP:GNG, article is also clearly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing convincing and only a mere listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious A7 candidate ("He addresses high-profile issues affecting natural resources and economic development by informing policy changes, improving program implementation, and managing projects effectively" are fine words, but since it's unsourced and presumably from a press release isn't remotely approaching a credible claim of significance.) ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally A7ed it but another editor disagreed, which is why I went via AfD. JamesG5 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah—I should have guessed who the editor in question was. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 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, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Hansen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person is quoted a lot in the media, but there seem to be no secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local level realtor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a realtor, by the way. Jacona (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising? How is this article any sort of advertising? Sorry, I just don't see that at all. Could you elaborate on how you believe this to be advertising? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete somewhat reluctantly, as there is an argument that the regional coverage she has received may be adequate to meet notability as a state-level CEO of a major trade organization. However, in this case, the article is so clearly a promo piece for a person who is a lobbyist for the real estate industry that it really does require deletion per WP:NOADS. In fact, it smacks of being a paid piece, though the editor probably was more interested in her connection to Florida sports figures, but there, we have NOTINHERITED. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the article is good, but whether the subject of the article is notable, isn't it? And are you really accusing me of paid editing? And if this is advertising, what am I selling for goodness sake? This person is not a realtor, but as stated, a state-level CEO of a major trade organization. Jacona (talk) 01:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HotelCoupons.com[edit]

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

non-notable website Wikipedia:Notability (web) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:ADVERT with no salvageable content. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT, fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Hanratty[edit]

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

No notability - Speedy Deletion process (WP:A7) repeatedly disrupted by article creator Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston (Disney)[edit]

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

Do we need a "character" page? We already have List_of_Disney's_Beauty_and_the_Beast_characters#Gaston. Kellymoat (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article proves subject's notability and is decently written with a good amount of third-party sources. If anything, some sections do go into a bit too much detail and could use some trimming. Plus, it reduces the length of the overlong BatB character article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Beauty and the Beast~~. Amending to Keep but only if improved per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:Essay and some sections are clearly WP:SYNTH. Reads like an infatuated fan wrote it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have worked with @Changedforbetter: before, and I can attest that she is thorough and comprehensive and professional in every article she works on. This article had previously been fancrufty and full of listy trivia, but then CFB came along and added a wonderfully researched "Characteristics and themes" section, as well as working the Development and Reception sections too. The rest - like Appearances - still have remnants of the fancruft, but surely her work in adding third party reliable sourcing demonstrates the sheer coverage about this fictional character in the literature, and shows that his article is well earnt? I know WP:Other Stuff Exists isn't an argument, but since they're quite similar, I'd like to point your attention to this list of Disney character and song articles she has brought to GA. Gaston is soon to follow, methinks. Ergo for all these reasons I think the article should be kept.--Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need some more cleanup - parts of it seem more like an essay than an article, some of the sources being used are not reliable and should be removed, and some sections contain some OR and unsourced claims. But, looking through the sources presented in the article, a number of them do talk about, and analyze, the character in more depth than simple plot summary, which I think allows this to pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use improvement, but I agree with above comments that it does pass notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CFB has done improvements for various articles before, the sources check out, and besides which, considering Gaston's the main villain, it just doesn't seem right for him to be relegated to a list character. Besides, the List of Beauty and the Beast Characters needs significant trimming down, anyway. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on folks, quality articles aren't born over night; take a quick look at my Belle (Disney), Aurora (Disney character), Monica Geller and Kim Possible (character) articles, to name a few, to find examples of articles that started off in an even more abysmal state than this one, but are currently considered to be among Wikipedia's best. If notability is your concern, simply Google "best Disney villains" and you'd quickly find that Gaston is within the top ten of countdown lists published almost every single publication in the search results (Reception? check). Sure, this article might be taking a little longer to transform than we'd like, and finding reliable sources for Development is proving to be a bit of a challenge. But hear me out: if this article is kept, I'll personally see to it that it's at least B-class status by spring. Don't believe me? Take a look at the "Characterization and themes" section; that's right, I did that ;)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored several VG character articles and it's completely reasonable to stick up for your own work, but you're being a tad defensive. Just about everyone here, including myself, has agreed the article should stay. I've seen my fair share of fictional character articles that are really bad and crufty, and it took seconds to realize this was not one of those instances. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't nominate it due to being poorly written. I nominated it because of exactly what I said - do we need a "character" page.Kellymoat (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, do we really need a Belle or Beast article? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a valid argument Kellymoat (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, by that logic, we should remove the Belle and Beast article precisely BECAUSE the existence of a List of Beauty and the Beast characters article makes their articles redundant. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned with other articles. I/we can deal with them separately (as we should). This nomination is solely about this article. Kellymoat (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Okay so I'm not so sure why exactly I'm being called out here for being "defensive"; all I did was state reasons the article should be given a chance, as the rest of us did, including you. Using other articles I've worked was only to provide visual examples of what this article could potentially become, sorry if you felt that was inapproate somehow. But as long as we're both arguing that the article should stay, I'm cool lol. Thanks.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goes into detail about the character. Some people refer to this article for the "Gaston machisimo" that he represents. I think it would be a disservice to WP to remove it. Justin15w (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep full of references, clearly notable. We have no policy against having character pages.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of good content about the character, complete with references. However, the article does need a bit of cleaning up in some areas. MidnightObservation (talk) 04:30, 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 redirect to Forced perspective#Comic effects. Supernerd's suggestion seems sensible. No prejudice against re-targeting or opening an RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baby mugging[edit]

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

Extremely limited content, little to no chance of expansion. Fails to pass 4 and 8 - The article, the link from from Internet Phenomena, and all of the source references, except for the Daily Mail, mentioned the creator by name with references to their website. The articles overall tone is that of a free plug for the bloggers website, or tiny bio. Sawta (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a look at the article and "stupid" is the gentlest way to describe it. Wikipedia is not the place to parade every half-assed Internet meme. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I almost want to say redirect to Depth of field in the hopes that it might help somebody out, but the kindest result would be delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. Reads like an advert.WP:WWIN SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into forced perspective#comic effects. This does lack depth, but notability still seems to be established enough to be worth a mention as a bit part. Forced perspective is probably better than depth of field, since the former already has a list of minor uses. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who created the article in contention) Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FirstCapital[edit]

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

A verbatim (to exclude "first capital" with a space) Google search firstcapital turns up nothing to demonstrate that this company meets WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks really shady, and I would suggest to Business Insider that they vet people who may be running a Ponzi scheme, altho, to counter-point https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/581860/new-years-honours-2017-full-list.pdf does list "Ms Hazel Caroline MOORE Chairman and Co-founder, FirstCapital. For services to Entrepreneurship and Innovation."

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not about FirstCapital. Just a mention. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; an unremarkable private investment bank going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are all from reliable publications and are not bias. The company is significant to several major deals and is chaired by a women who is top of her industry and has an OBE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurycs (talk • contribs) — Maurycs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as failing GNG. The article seems to be more about Hazel Moore than about this investment bank. No sources given on how this bank itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 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 merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2012 ASEAN University Games[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event, poorly formatted and violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games - neither article is very long. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No reason for this to exist as separate article. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:07, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buy term and invest the difference[edit]

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

Article has been here over 10 years, and still has no substantial sources, poorly written, and seems to be more of a how-to than an article, as shown by the title. I'm not one who generally supports AfDs to generate improvements, but in this case the article has been here too long without complying to remain as -is. BilCat (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pretty blatant and longstanding example of WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. One wonders if it was written by an agent or broker looking to point to Wikipedia as a proof of what he's advising clients to do. Anyway, good catch.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known and somewhat controversial insurance investment strategy that was popular at one point and is said to have contributed to the decline of investment in life insurance. For searching, BTID is the common abbreviation and nets more sources. Given a few minutes of searching, I added 4 general references to the article. GScholar and GBooks shows hundreds of hits, so there are more sources to be had. Hence, this topic looks notable. The article does have problems with having an essay style and lack of inline citations, but given reliable source material, these are problems that can be fixed by normal editing. --Mark viking (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with a few sources added, this is still a non-encyclopedic essay. It makes assertions about spending and saving habits, about how most people do not save money after quiting smoking, etc., without any sources. The article lacks any historical or geographical context, any consideration of societal expectations, life-expectancy expectations, etc. There might be a worth-while article that could exist under this title, but this is not it, and we should TNT this article and make people start over again, using reliable sources, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 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. Consensus is that this team is not notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shippensburg Raiders Roller Hockey[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Note that it has been tagged as unsourced since January 2012. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 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 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above posters - totally fails WP:GNG, and is automatically suspect given its creator had an obvious interest in promoting roller hockey. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing about the nomination is correct, and I want to make sure people are voting for the right reasons. Pages were not all created by the same user, and WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, not teams. This one may actually fail WP:GNG but that doesn't change the fact that the nomination was in bad faith and the dozens of articles he also nominated easily satisfy it. If you throw a bunch of darts wildly, as nominator has, you're bound to hit something once in a while. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 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. National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association Division I is not deleted as it was not properly tagged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Collegiate Roller Hockey Championships[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on National Collegiate Roller Hockey Championships. There are some Google News hits on the subject that could maybe serve as sources. Much of the content is overkill though. It could do with the red links trimming out and generally cutting down in size to fit what the sources support.
Delete (with optional very limited merge) National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association Division I. We don't need articles on the individual divisions of a pretty minor sports league. The divisions can be briefly mentioned in the parent article without a load of crufty detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Championships article. I might have recommended merging it into the article on List of NCRHA seasons, but that one has also been nominated for deletion and looks like it might not survive. As for the Division I article, I see that no AfD template was placed on the article, so I question whether it is proper to consider its deletion here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Member Organization (NCRHA)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. (Note that is has been unreferenced since September 2012) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:58, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Rankings Committee National Rankings[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 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 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per rationale above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Friendship and Integration[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Non-notable award purportedly given by non-notable foundation. No press coverage apart from a Facebook post advertising a charity event that apparently took place in Warsaw a few days ago; even the foundation's website (largely under construction) doesn't mention it. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Harambi Foundation seems to have been set up in 2005 by Sudanese people living in Poland. Since then it has "suspended its activities" but was relaunched in 2016. This award was introduced in 2016 but does not seem to be mentioned on the HF website. I can find no independent sources mentioning the organisation or the award. I think both are non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Blitz[edit]

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

Looks like a man with a job, as the sources only confirm that the man has a job. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence given (and I could not find them) for the awards that he is supposed to have won. The Banner talk 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete background music participation at his level is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree not notable. WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page has been edited to clearly state that mastering engineer "Ari Blitz" has worked on Grammy Nominated/Billboard charted songs/albums. This is completely 100% factual. Ari Blitz has had dozens of billboard charts songs that he has mastered in the past 10 years. As well as songs that have been nominated for grammys. It is much more than "A man with a job" this is success over a decade in the mastering field.

Please see http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ari-blitz-mn0001082530 for the credits on the nominations in question. All albums/work cited have been Grammy nominated as stated. Also please see Mack Wilds^[1]Tim Bowman Jr^[2]Salaam Remi^[3]Hiatus Kiayote^[4] These were all mastered by Ari Blitz and have been grammy nominated as stated.

References

^ https://www.grammy.com/blogs/first-time-grammy-nominee-mack-wilds
^ http://tracegospel.tv/music/tim-bowman-jr-earns-first-grammy-nomination-listen/
^ http://uproxx.com/hitfix/salaam-remi-talks-grammy-nominated-one-in-the-chamber-nas-and-jennifer-hudson/
^ http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/grammys/6785992/2016-grammy-nominations-surprises

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabellejb (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Working on Grammy-nominated works and chart toppers doesn't make one notable. It doesn't rub off from the artists. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Page has been edited to clearly state that mastering engineer "Ari Blitz" has worked on Grammy Nominated/Billboard charted songs/albums. This is completely 100% factual.

Strike duplicate iVote from Special:Contributions/Isabellejb. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- zero encyclopedic prose. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in the Park festival[edit]

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

This wasn't notable during the first AfD; it still isn't today. If we filter out the official sites and the press releases, we're left with a handful of items in the local press. Nothing really suggests the veracity of the outlandish claim made in the first sentence — which, incidentally, is sourced from a dead link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy to reconsider if significant coverage beyond local event blurbs is found. Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local and non-independent sources only. no evidence of non-local notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 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. One of the "Delete" opinions is not supported in any way by policy, and while I'm sympathetic to the opinion expressed in the other two those concerns can be addressed with less dramatic measures, such as cleanup or stubifying out the machine-translated rubbish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Police of Panama[edit]

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

As background:- This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the inaccurate statement that there is "no good reason for deletion", despite extensive community discussion and consensus to the contrary. So now I need to ask the community to enforce it via AfD.

I want to be clear that this translation is fixable for someone with dual fluency. I could fix it. But the effort involved is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have copy-edited the first few paragraphs and hope to continue. Accordingly, the article is no longer eligible for speedy deletion as a machine translation. Eastmain (talk • contribs)

Great, would you like me to withdraw the AfD for a couple of weeks while you finish the job? Quite happy to do that if you do intend to fix it. Could you just confirm that you understand the source version in Spanish? The reason I ask is because translation scripts can pervert or even invert the meaning of the source text so we do need a Wikipedian to accept responsibility for the accuracy of the translation.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic itself is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's never been in dispute. It doesn't address the reasons for deletion in any way.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. AfD is for articles not notable enough for inclusion, not for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about cleanup, though. I know the discussions and consensus I linked to in my nomination statement are long and involved, and it's possible that you haven't read them carefully? It's about translation errors, which boils down to verifiability. The basic question in this AfD is can a Wikipedian verify that the script has produced an accurate translation of the source language text? I've already offered to withdraw the AfD nom if a Wikipedian will take responsibility for making sure it's accurate. I don't trust the script to do it. Google translate specifically disclaims any responsibility for it. Literally the entire content of the page is unverifiable unless and until someone with dual fluency in English and Spanish checks it. And I've linked to the very full and complete discussion in which the community decided that it would be disproportionate to ask editors with dual fluency to check them individually before deletion.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. AfD is for deletion of articles on topics which are not notable. Even if this article was reduced to a stub the topic would still be notable. Its existence is clearly verifiable. Ergo there is no reason for deletion of the article and bringing it to AfD was unnecessary. You could have just reduced the thing to a stub and saved us the trouble of discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really right, though. In most cases topics that aren't notable shouldn't be deleted. They can typically be redirected somewhere; see User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things for a lot of nuanced thought on this. AfD is for content that's irretrievably bad: WP:TNT cases. In this case I would agree with you that a short, sourced stub or a redirection to Panama are reasonable outcomes, after the existing content has been deleted in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This is the English Wikipedia. Might be notable in Panama and the Spanish Wiki, but not here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...SW3 5DL... that's... not at all how this works. TimothyJosephWood 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I showing 5k+ results for Policía Nacional de Panamá in news. There's another 100 for Panamanian National Police in English. The biggest issue that needs addressed here is whether the correct translation is Panamanian National Police or National Police of Panama, and which one of those should instead be a redirect. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...TimothyJosephWood. . .this. . .is how it works. WP:GNG. Find some we can all see and it can stay. Google searches don't count if you don't show the sources. And then perhaps improve the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is that your argument makes no sense on its face. Non-English sources are permitted on Wikipedia. If a subject is notable on the Spanish WP, its actually an argument in favor of the generally notability of the subject, because subjects are not selectively notable by language. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's notable. Yes, there are sources. Clearly, Wikipedia should have a well-sourced article on the police force in Panama, and that's never been in dispute ---- I said as much in my nomination statement. The argument for deletion is that this content --- this unverified, machine-translated garbage generated with a couple of mouse-clicks --- is not a useful step towards that goal. Between the two of you, you've already done far more towards generating the article the encyclopaedia should have than the "author" of this "content". Shouldn't we clear up his litter?—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see a good reason not to stubify with an expand tag at the very least, or to see if anyone wants to expand the portion that can be included in that stub, plus whatever sources we have that are in English. I have posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America to see if anyone is interested. The Panama WikiProject unfortunately seems pretty dead. TimothyJosephWood 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody disputes that the topic is (probably) notable. The problem is that the content is almost entirely worthless machine-translated garbage. Keeping the article up in this state actively damages the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. Unless somebody wants to userfy and entirely rework it, it should be deleted. Sandstein 08:22, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Gaming Ltd[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, speedied before as advertising Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete, and salt in view of history of recreating. I was unable to find an independent source about Meridian Gaming that I would consider reliable and could form the basis of a Wikipedia article. We can verify that this corporation exists and offers online gambling services, but that's it, and that's no basis for an article. I considered whether it was possible to redirect it but we don't have a list of online casinos and I don't feel motivated to create one.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, since I see all over Wikipedia similar legit pages and articles about companies. There is no difference between those and this article. Company is well known at Balkans and pioneer in online gambling in that market. There is enough referrals and sources online to support authority of the corporation. Also, I do not agree with S Marshall that page should be moved to list of online casinos, since the Meridian Gaming Ltd is software development company and betting operator at first. —MissKnowItOl
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GNG. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This is a poorly written advert that apparently has a tendency to reappear. Wikipedia is not an advertising blog. Fails WP:GNG. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I do not see enough secondary sources talking about this company. In addition, the repeated attempts to recreate it show that the aim is to promote the company. In addition, I just had a look at the history of Metioche (disambiguation) (See Special:Contributions/Sadlyraft) and there was a highly disruptive attempt to hijack the disambiguation article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the history of that page, I think we've got sufficient evidence for an SPI-case: See Special:Contributions/Alexdjix89 , Special:Contributions/Alexdjix89, Special:Contributions/37.18.184.12. Kleuske (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadlyraft. Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis and Shiites[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as "Aljaras Newspaper" (written in an RTL language) is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. Redirect to director Abbas Fahdel. Short films have it difficult and being Iraqi film makes it even more so. Fine for this to be resurrected if and or when inclusion criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8 and redirect to director Abbas Fahdel as a plausible WP:ATD-R, but the film does fail WP:NFP. — Sam Sailor 18:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Consortium of Tanzania[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 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 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advert. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no significant citation in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Sharir[edit]

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

I am dubious about the notability of this topic. Of the only two references offered, one is to an article written by the author of this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... the author of this page is also listed as an author on the other reference. The first ref proposes that it would be a sensible thing that 'allopaths' teach AYUSH to postgrads? wut? Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find very little about this and the simple use of the term pejorative and inaccurate term Allopath makes my hackles rise!!! This is a typical exemple of alternative medicine trying to homogenise terms to put homeopathy on the same level as "allopathy". The main page on Ayurveda does not mention this branch so I doubt that it can be that important. Maybe suggest that the author adds a section about "his" branch first. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: We have now added many relevant citations and have removed all ambiguous terms. Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery refers to this subject. We don't mind if the page gets deleted, but we are curious to know why the wikipedia community is against alternative medicine. Why is 'Ayurveda' Page a part of a series on Alternative and pseudo-medicine? When Wikipedia can include all sorts of distorted forms of Yoga into Wikipedia pages, (for example, Dog Yoga, why can't it include Ayurveda? Both these streams of knowledge originated in India and both share many theories and principles in common.

When I used the term 'important' in one of the revisions, one of the users asked me to remove it. I understand the reason very well: it may reflect my bias. But when the Wikipedia runs a title saying that "this article is a pert of the series on Pseudo-medicine", does it not reflect the bias this entire community has?

Comment Wikipedia has a large number of articles about alternative medicine but tries to adhere to the principal that the information must be presented in a neutral manner which owing to the lack of proof of the efficacy of certain methods and beliefs over and above the placebo effet, for their practitioners or followers or believers this can seem like bias but is just the application of neutrality. No one is saying that this page should not exist because it is alternative but because it needs to be proved to be notable Domdeparis (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~[reply]

Hi @Patwardhankishor: if you wish to modify a comment on a talk page and no one has answered it yet you are free to do so but if someone has already replied it is better to redact the text, here is the page that explains this WP:REDACT, you do this by using the following code <s>...</s> or <del>...</del>. This helps anyone reading the discussion page follow the conversation without looking up the diffs. And please remember to sign your comments. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will keep this in mind. Many Universities in India award degrees (PG and PhD) in Kriya Sharir. Many universities have a full-fledged departments named after this specialty [27]. I don't know how this is less notable than Dog Yoga. How many universities award degrees in Dog Yoga? Thanks. Patwardhankishor (talk) Comment I too dont understand why kriya sharir is not taking under consideration by wikipedia..as it is the basic most subject which deals with physiology as per ayurveda perspective..and how can anyone treat the patient without knowing the physiology.it is out of my understanding.So many relevant rsearches has been done by kriya sharir scholars which have contribution in modern science also.and I really believe that there should be a page of kriya sharir so dat people could understand the basics of ayurveda in light of modern science which will serve the need of its globalisation Anam tamimi (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Anam Tamimi[reply]

Weak keep, but only if we can find some content. At this point it's just general information on Ayurveda, DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 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 00:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and apparently has WP:COI. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way it's written almost sounds like WP:OR. Also concerned on the COI. Unsure if it can be fixed South Nashua (talk) 14:11, 29 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuestFusion[edit]

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

This seems like a pure work of promotion. Not sure that the sources provided show it meets the WP:NORG criteria. Of the 12 sources provided 5 are written by the owner of the company, "prweb" "questfusion.hatenablog" "totugalogic" siliconcape" and "entrepreneur". 2 are interviews with 2 or 3 1-line questions and lots of PR blurb as answers "supercrew" and "thumbtack". 1 is a blog "startcatchup". 1 is a podcast interview "epodcastnetwork". 2 are business directories and nothing more "angel.co" and "crunchbase". the only one that seems to be neutral is "marketersmedia" Domdeparis (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a small company it has enough web references. I'd say we keep it. "Solana Beach Award" is enough for this kind of company. Dortar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Note - This editor is the creator of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. Sources are a collection of PR guff. Wikipedia is not a directory for business listings. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not one good secondary source available about the company. Notability cannot be inherited from mentions in an article about the owner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Database Console Commands (Transact-SQL)[edit]

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

Regurgitation of Microsoft documentation. Wikipedia is not a reference manual, nor a how-to. Mikeblas (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a manual. Probably many years out of date by now anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:WWIN Not a reference manual

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion is leaning towards "delete" but there just isn't enough participation to make a conclusive determination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Blas[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an artist and writer, which just asserts that he exists and references that entirely to primary sources like his own website and his staff profile on the website of his own employer with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, an artist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourceable as passing WP:CREATIVE for something for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Entry has been updated with citations that demonstrate writing about the artist in major publications (and reliable sources) such as The New York Times and especially in principal art publications such as Artforum, ArtReview, and Frieze. Also cites various projects at major museums - Aoh5 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial and unconvincing given the sources are simple announcements and mentions, there's nothing seriously convincing since there's nothing for a significant article as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feel that the pieces at ArtForum and Good Magazine arguably meet WP:BASIC by themselves. Some of the other sources here are of lesser reliability or are not in-depth coverage of the artist of his work, but I believe that, carefully sorted, there's enough. --joe decker ^talk 03:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:52, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Tiwari[edit]

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

As explained on Talk:Lok Tiwari in more detail, I could not find one useable sources from the {{Find sources}} links for news, newspapers, HighBeam, JSTOR, scholar, and the WP reference custom search. From a general web search, there are a lot of social media, blog, Q&A interviews (that appear to be duplicated in other sources), and sources that are not meeting the reliable, secondary or independent sources guidelines. I am not finding enough to prove notability per WP:GNG, and believe this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. —CaroleHenson (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is renown social worker and businessman among Nepalese in the USA. I am improving this article. User:HariKrishna123

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CaroleHenson (as expressed on Talk:Lok Tiwari#Contested deletion). No notability (in the sense of WP:GNG or WP:BIO) that is supported by independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talk2chun (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is renown social worker and businessman among Nepalese in the USA. There are a lot of sources in Nepali language and I am improving this article with english sources. User:HariKrishna123

Keep Some sources are ok to prove his notability but not enough. Need to improve but not to delete. User:Kingnewyork 18:20, 13 January 2017 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not provide significant coverage. For example this restaurant review in Washington Post is very brief coverage. The other sources are not really what I call reliable sources (and are interviews). The rest of the sources are affiliated to the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:From this, it seems the page creator may have a conflict of interest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:10, 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. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pantea Haghighi[edit]

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

Not notable. A quick Google search shows that she does not have any notability of her own. Susana Hodge (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one WP:RS that is significantly about the article subject, instead of the works she has curated. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 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 Consensus is to delete as non notable.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gray (Author)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are for the most part brief mentions, quotes, or WP:PRIMARY in nature. Editor that created article has disclosed they are associated "employer, client, and[/or other] affiliation" on article talk page. Page is more of a vanity/advertisement page than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dave is a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration. Plus, the page was created in compliance with Wikipedia's paid inclusion policy so that should not be in consideration here. The writing here is absolutely in keeping with Wikipedia style...there is no vanity or slant to how the information is presented. Karmaclub (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Sockpuppet !vote stricken.[reply]

Comment - Please indicate how being , "a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration" meets any of the criteria for inclusion listed in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography. I was in the process of adding even more sources and citations to the page, but we are now detoured here. Karmaclub (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speaking at a design think tank is not enough for notability. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. The article is written like an ad anyway. Laurdecl ^talk 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: See my comment above. Karmaclub (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising the Keep comment simply says "He's well known and notable" but not actually showing it, especially to at least convince us better from the currently unacceptable article, since it's simply PR. Like with articles, the user is allowed to make improvements but it won't be a guarantee of keeping it, and "The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography" is not showing our actual policies accepting it (for example WP:NOT), hence not the same thing. Overall, there's enough to suggest there's simply not the significant notability needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Took me a while to check the copious "sources" and assess the article, which gives all the appearance of of a reasonable article. However, the sources are not truly reliable and the text of the article feels like a PROMO. Finally, the keep !vote above is that of the self-declared COI editor that created it — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as would be satisfied if WP:RS existed. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just finished reading Liminal Thinking and really enjoyed it. I'd like this page to stay so I can follow the author. Mi5meadow (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mi5meadow: That amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and is not really a valid argument at AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INGOT Brokers[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. only 2 articles link to this small company. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sufficient to support notability - no IRSS jumped out at me. Nearly everything online seems to be in-industry promo-release type material. Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Park, Yagoona[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. only primary sources provided. Parks are not inherently notable, nor do I see it being notable for hosting an amateur team. also whilst adding ", Yagoona" might be a disambiguation there are other Middleton Parks in the world so a redirect will cause confusion. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to Yagoona, New South Wales#Parks where it is mentioned already. The brief discussion and the three references can be merged to there. We should always be looking for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion and this is a good option here. Also, I sort of think parks are inherently notable, and this is more than a tiny corner park, it has two regulation football fields and is a public attraction that is going to be listed in newspaper events columns, etc. If merged, the redirect left behind will not "cause confusion" (or please explain, how would it cause confusion?) --do ncr am 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing to merge given it's simply a few sentences, anything that could be simply added to anything else, what's here is simply a guide listing and we never accept those in policy. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose - as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neill Park. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing makes this park notable, it's WP:MILL. MB 21:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the "Delete" votes contains any reason why this should not be redirected/merged. Redirect/merge is simply better than Delete. It is certainly possible for a reader to be looking for the Middleton Park in Yagoona; they do not know the obscure Wikipedia rules/processes about whether something is deemed Wikipedia-notable or not. I voted "Merge" above and I do think it is marginally notable, as many parks are. Leaving a redirect behind permits re-creation of article with edit history intact if/when there is more coverage/material/sources on the topic. --do ncr am 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nice try but the consensus is clearly delete, if people want redirect/merge they would say that. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You come across as glib/gleeful about winning something here, rather than civil. Would you mind telling me why you think a redirect is not appropriate, please? --do ncr am 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in WP:CONSENSUS. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which states that quality of argument matters. This is not a majority vote, and it should not be a wp:BATTLEGROUND. It remains that neither LibStar nor any other editor has an argument (not a valid argument IMO) against there being a redirect/merge. --do ncr am 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure it's not a majority vote but so far no one agrees with you, so you're clutching at straws to say you have a winning consensus here. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Normally I'd be happy with a redirect, but is this truly a plausible search term? Is anyone going to type in "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in a blind search? In the highly unlikely event that this park becomes unambiguously notable in the future and we need the history, it can be undeleted easily enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- It is perfectly likely that someone would type in "Middleton Park" and then they would see that, among suggested drop-down options, there is "Middleton Park, Yagoona". And/or they might get to the primary Middleton Park article and find their way to Middleton Park (disambiguation) and thence to it. --doncram 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I think we have to agree to disagree on this and let the closing admin sort things out; I think that the scenario you outline is pretty unlikely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I usually prefer a merge/redirect, but in this case there is absolutely nothing much to merge. I also do not prefer a redirect as the argument for a plausible search term is no longer valid with the advent of Google's semantic search. Someone searching "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in Google will get Yagoona as the first search result. Considering that redirects are costly, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Brooks[edit]

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

Non-notable up-and-coming golfer. Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way WP:TOOSOON, and non-viable sourcing. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with 69, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable... yet. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGOLF Eagleash (talk) 03:29, 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.

[1] ttps://www.grammy.com/blogs/first-time-grammy-nominee-mack-wilds

[2] ttp://tracegospel.tv/music/tim-bowman-jr-earns-first-grammy-nomination-listen/

[3] ttp://uproxx.com/hitfix/salaam-remi-talks-grammy-nominated-one-in-the-chamber-nas-and-jennifer-hudson/

[4] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/news/grammys/6785992/2016-grammy-nominations-surprises

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]