Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 January	22 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 keep. Tone 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Day (businessman)[edit]

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

For wikipedia article, subject must have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. There is no evidence that there is significant coverage of this individual, nor any news or coverage to indicate this would be any kind of notable person (having money does not automatically make one notable. Singhaarav52 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not Wealthypedia. There is no indication that this person has done anything notable, except to make a lot of money. So what? Bearian (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. There still seems to be pockets of anti-business bias on Wikipedia. Regardless of what one might feel about billionaires, there are only 1,700 of them worldwide, so it is difficult to see how any of them would not be notable. In any event, simply clicking through to Edinburgh Woollen Mill would reveal that Day has been the CEO for at least 15 years of a company with almost 1,000 stores. The nominator only has 51 edits, but that's no excuse for not reading the instructions, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." (see WP:BEFORE). With a self-proclaimed "over 64,000 edits", Bearian really should know better! Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1,700 worldwide? If that's not WP:MILL, I don't know what it would be. I'm not anti-business; I am a small businessman and have represented many businesses as an attorney. So I do know better! I don't see any anti-business bias here in Wikipedia - if anything, we're littered with business cruft. Owning a business is not the same as being or working as a business person. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. Notable billionaire businessman who owns brands millions of people wear. The article has been expanded since the nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, WP:SNOW only applies when consensus is so overwhelming that continuing to discuss the matter would be like a snowball melting in hell; 2, Asserting he's notable without significant coverage is a classic example of a tautology; 3, owning something does not magically impart some special attribute to its owner; 4, it's been expanded with trivia about a living person without being substantially improved. I'd like to hear from regulars at AfD such as DGG and Sportsfan_1234 before I'd go along. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Easily meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx, Zigzig20s, and Philafrenzy, you all are experienced editors. You all must know that you just can't !vote and not explain why someone is notable. Google searches reveal a lot of articles about other people with the same or similar name, so I don't blame the newbie for not doing a complete search. If the subject were really well-known in Great Britain, there would be more in-depth sources about him. I don't see it, as least not yet. Please, convince me, somebody. I used to have a reputation as an inclusionist. Then I saw lots of poorly-sourced articles about wealthy people that seem to have been written by PR types. I believe that somebody should not be able to buy their way onto a charitable platform. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also tagging SwisterTwister and Bearcat, whom I trust even when we disagree. Bearian (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments puzzle me Bearian. There's plenty of coverage from a Google search for "Philip Day Edinburgh Woollen Mill" which discusses his activities in depth. I don't understand why you say he has bought his way in. I hope that's just poorly worded and not an accusation of bad faith. The article certainly doesn't read like a PR piece to me. In fact, I would imagine that the subject would rather it didn't exist since it details his fine for damaging ancient woodlands. No PR person would ever have included that. Nor the part about how he ordered his employees to vote for his daughter in a competition. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comments don't puzzle me, and I didn't mean to impugn Edwardx. I just don't think CEOs should automatically get articles on Wikipedia. When I first saw the stub it was just tiny a bit of a stub, although it has been expanded considerably. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. For the record, a search under "Philip Day (businessman)" -Wikipedia shows 10 Ghits, none of which are notable and several of which are "mirror sites". Meanwhile, a search for "Philip Day" -Wikipedia reveals over 54,00 Ghits. So I did my basic homework. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure you did. A search for "Philip Day Edinburgh Woollen Mill" or "Edinburgh Woollen Mill Philip Day" would have made more sense. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Billionaire (in pounds that is - highly unusual) and owner of a very significant company. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am prepared to assume that billionaires are notable. As an argument based on the GNG, in a situation like this it's impossible to distinguish clearly the articles mainly about the business, from those mainly about him. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Vlasov[edit]

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

~~Blatant self-promotion, see: "I began working..."~~ Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC) I withdraw the nomination per WP:SNOW and request that it be closed. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The same user created the article on the Russian Wiki and the Ukrainian Wiki. In his Russian userpage, the creator claims to be barely 16 (born January 3, 2001) but married with one child. It seems odd, particularly if the creator is also the subject of the article. This is a real elected representative in the Russian government - it's easy to find verification even in English language sources. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stubify if necessary. The subject is a verifiable member of the Russian Parliament,[1] thus passing WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said earlier, this is easily verified as a real member of parliament. There may be opportunity to expand the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes the notability guideline for politicians. The article may be poorly written, but that is not a reason to delete.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 20:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation [2].--Jürgen Klinsmann1990 (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added to the article, including a reference in the official Russian government web site that lists Vlasov as a deputy of the State Duma, and as a member of the State Duma Committee on Physical Culture, Sports, Tourism and Youth Affairs. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously, per WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the use of first person pronoun was a translation error, from the article on Russian WP. Without that, this would not have been nominated. Should be a speedy keep. Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Case of cleanup rather than delete. Members of national parliaments are notable. South Nashua (talk) 16:54, 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. Tone 10:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suzana Trifković[edit]

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

Nothing suggest she passes WP:CREATIVE or WP:BASIC Arthistorian1977 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NACTOR. Playing in a few low-budget films doesn't constitue notability, especially when it is hard to find any sources talking about the subject. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR, Sources are just Internet barrel scraping. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is barely a little more than a CV, fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. No such user (talk) 10:07, 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 speedy delete (procedural close). (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elie haoui[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. I do not believe having your Youtube video "looked at" by a media company is notable enough to receive your on WP page. Additional claims of notability are insignificant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7. Just FYI, subject has 59 subscribers on Youtube. Media companies are interested in many videos. No credible references to be found. Seems more to be an advert than serious attempt to create WP article. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:55, 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. Tone 10:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chavo & Hernandez[edit]

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

The team was fairly short lived and did not do much to gain notabilty as a team - furthermore all information is already in the articles of Chavo Guerrero Jr. and Hernandez (wrestler), which is the appropriate place for something that is but a footnote in the career of both wrestlers. MPJ-DK 22:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 14:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They're notable independently but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The team isn't notable, but the individual members are. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 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. Tone 10:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limnofish[edit]

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

Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 21:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no evidence of notability yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Couldn't find anything to indicate an importance, fails WP:N. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to indicate notability of this journal. Fails WP:N AND NJOURNALS. Probably WP:TOOSOON. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - First published in 2015. Does not yet qualify as notable under WP:NJournals guidelines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:23, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rein[edit]

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

The only source lists him as a lawyer at Standard Security. Cannot find any source that says anything about what he did. Does not meet WP:BIO Rogermx (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability offered or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:07, 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 merge to History of Valdivia. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Valdivian history[edit]

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

Lack of evidence of WP:GNG; I don't think that a stand-alone article can be justified. I think that this article is purely original research. Spiderone 19:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced original research and not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Ajf773 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. There's no justification for this to exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I spent nine days last year in the lovely country of Chile, which is filled with many wonderful sights and tastes. This small city of 127,000 is not one of them. Why we need this list is beyond my imagination. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Valdivia and/or Valdivia. Not a notable topic for a standalone list, but the content would be a useful illustration for one or both of those articles. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At most merge; certainly do not keep. However, I have reservations about merging, because it may dispriptm the target article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The history of the city of Valdivia, Chile is well covered by existing articles. This completely unreferenced timeline looks like OR, is quite unnecessary and fails the notability requirements for stand-alone lists. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of Valdivia, there's no need to lose the content merely because it doesn't fit on its own stand-alone article. Diego (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried that, because it is purely original research, it may not even be suitable for merging. Spiderone 20:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting where the OR concerns are coming from. It's a pretty straightforward timeline of events, all of which are verifiable in Valdivia#History. We often include figures like this in history articles, whoever created this one just seems to have separated it for some reason. – Joe (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Only very little content from it could be merged (WP:OR) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:00, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Distance[edit]

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

Notability in question - does not seem to fulfill the WP:GNG requirements, considering I found virtually no sourcing whatsoever. GAB^gab 19:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment GeneralizationsAreBad, I've speedy tagged the article as a duplicate of Brian Distance. You may wish to move the AfD discussion there. Linguist^talk|contribs 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. GAB^gab 19:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All I found were profiles on IMDb and similar sites, videos on video sharing sites, a photo of him with Jamie Foxx and Michael Irby, some fan wiki page and trivial mentions in two news articles. Nothing that establishes notability. Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Puts on clerk Fez) Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ashishchopra778, this may well be eligible for G5, too. GAB^gab 02:18, 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. Tone 10:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Horvat[edit]

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

Participant in a beauty pageant itself of questionable notability. Did not even place in an event that is only a few years old. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not Wikipedia's role to be a comprensive database of every person who ever won any beauty pageant at all, without regard to how minor or how unsourceable it may be, but this article is not referenced even close to well enough to get Monika Horvat over WP:GNG — the little bit of "referencing" present here consists entirely of primary sources, with not even one piece of real reliable source coverage in a real media outlet shown at all. And even the international parent pageant's notability is iffy at best, with its article also much more dependent on its own primary source content about itself than on sufficient evidence of GNG, let alone the lower-level "Miss Grand Canada" title that's all she actually won. So winning a pageant of questionable notability is simply not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to be more reliably sourceable than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability criteria, as winner of a non-notable pageant, Miss Grand Canada, and participant in an international event. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:13, 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 Keep CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Oklahoma State vs. Iowa State football game[edit]

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

No references backing up the article. Fbdave (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have several sources I can add. This game had a huge impact on college football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karmew32 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep methinks this AfD is premature. Give the article creator more time. Also, did the nominator do any WP:BEFORE? Lepricavark (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Why is this game notable? My understanding is it is notable, because it led to the formation of the College Football Playoff. Fbdave (talk) 14:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this game is clearly notable because of the overwhelming amount of coverage it received in third party reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This game is HUGE in the College Football World. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.113.66.100 (talk) 19:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The game had major implications at the time and the scope and breadth of the sources provided support the claim of notability for the article. Alansohn (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into 2011 Oklahoma State Cowboys football team for the material specifically related to Oklahoma State, 2011 Iowa State Cyclones football team for the Iowa State material, and 2012 BCS National Championship Game for the material explaining the impact this game had on the BCS. The College Football Playoff article can mention this game if deemed significant to the origins of that process. Most sources discussing this game will be of routine nature. The claims to greater significance use weasel words such as

The rematch is cited by many as and Thus, some people have marked and are cited to SBNation and Rivals.com, respectively, which I didn't realize we considered reliable sources for claims such as these. –Grondemar 06:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Game had a significant impact on the future of college football. As such, it is clearly notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as nominator. References listed are at best an alternative history about what might have happened if the game result was different. This article regarding the CFP formation and cited by the SBNation reference, Playoff approved, questions remain makes no mention of the OSU-ISU game. In fact, it even has the quote, "I don't think there was a single moment [to spark change]," ACC commissioner John Swofford said. Fbdave (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment even if that were true, there is still more than enough significant third party coverage in reliable sources to more than surpass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paulmcdonald: That's true for virtually every Division I-FBS college football game. Between national coverage on ESPN, CBS Sports, NBC Sports, USA Today, etc. and local coverage from multiple newspapers and TV stations, I could find the sources to meet WP:GNG for any game played at least for the last decade. That's why, in addition to GNG, we have WP:ROUTINE, which specifically says "Routine events such as sports matches...may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." We have historically required individual regular season games to show a greater level of notability than GNG, and this game, whose claim to greater notability rests on a dubious SBNation article, in my opinion does not meet our historical standards for inclusion. –Grondemar 00:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Fbdave: Please do not vote twice. Your nomination counts as a delete vote. I would suggest you strike this additional vote to avoid confusion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment as nominator: I thought that the nominator was allowed to participate in the deletion discussion. Fbdave (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sometimes a nominator may take a neutral position or even change their mind yet the AFD could remain open. The nominator is making their position clear and I see no bad faith.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOTROUTINE the essay here provides arguments that "routine" is often over-used. I believe that is the case here as the coverage is far beyond the "routine coverage" of game scores only. There is significant, in-depth coverage of this game.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Struck duplicate !vote from nominator above; the nomination is considered as your !vote. However, feel free to comment all you'd like. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 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. Tone 10:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Vault[edit]

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

Video game designer company that seems to have created a single title. References primarily to its own website. Even if their game is notable (likely, given that we treat any video game with review or two as notable), notability is not inherited, and this one clearly fails WP:NCOMPANY. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable VG company, no viable citations. Lone release is an obsolete MMORPG whose article is horribly sourced. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear business listing with only announcements as sources, that's clear enough anytime. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a company that fails WP:NCOMPANY. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 20:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG and NCOMPANY DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:13, 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 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Patrick (actor)[edit]

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

fails notabity guidelines; this man may have been a successful jobbing actor, but the list of credits given do not suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Especially considering the likely period in which the actor was active, I've tried to find at least any inkling of a point of departure towards obtaining reliable sources to establish notability based on WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. But when multiple variations of search queries in Google, Google News and Google Books (including complex ones such as "Roy Patrick" actor -wikipedia -site:imdb.com -site:moviefone.com -site:digiguide.tv -site:wikia.com -torrent -download -site:theputlocker.org -site:theputlocker.net -linkedin.com do not provide even one relevant source that even minimally mentions the subject (let alone credible/reliable sources), I'm not sure this article can be saved.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 18:23, 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 02:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ari ankh ka[edit]

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

Despite an extensive search for sources, the only hits I could find about this form of yoga are brief mentions, (possibly promotional) articles about practitioners, and videos. Nothing specifically about this practice itself. While this is besides the point of this AfD, searching around found hits which suggests this could be related to "Egyptian yoga" (itself an unlikely concept considering yoga in its modern sense was essentially invented millenia after the fall of Ancient Egypt). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:24, 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 16:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oddly enough, I've also found a fleeting mention of "Ari Ankh Ka", which related it to Hatha yoga (see [3]), which is perplexing, since the same source also lists it as an alternative name to Egyptian yoga ([4]).--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 18:40, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler County Dogwood Festival[edit]

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

Article describes a routine event in a small community. Does not meet WP:EVENT. It is also promotional in nature and violates WP:PROMO. Suggest deletion and adding content to Tyler County article.Rogermx (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and strictly promotional. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no indication that this festival is notable enough for a standalone article, and the current content is uselessly promotional. Perhaps worth a passing mention at the article on the county, per the nominator. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overtly promotional, unclear sourcing, fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:14, 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 02:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamstime[edit]

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

This article has superficial referenciness but the sources are all recycled press releases. I don't see any substantive independent coverage at all. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 21:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've contributed to this page several times during the last 2 or 3 years. There are not many references about the industry but I find the content relevant for the users. The stock industry is very important for millions of photographers around the world and they need to be informed about the way they can monetize their content. HelenaD 12:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helenadobre (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete per WP:PROMO / WP:TOOSOON; the company is not yet notable per available sources, which are mostly promotionally angled. Content belongs on the company web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not adhere to Wiki standards. Seems like merely a corporate spam/ directory Light2021 (talk) 17:52, 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 keep. Consensus within this discussion is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SDMT Prabhavati Public School[edit]

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

Appears to be non-notable. There are only primary sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: Even there's only primary sources, that warrants an own article about the school. So, it's not a valid reason for deletion. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seconding the opinion above. Veejs7er (talk) 10:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per consensus in WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:14, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Hand (Irish Republican)[edit]

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

Non-notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Searches of his name don't turn up anything other than the article that's already sourced. st 170e 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. st 170e 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. st 170e 17:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is this http://oldskerries.ie/thomas-hand/ and this http://www.irishmedals.org/ira-killed.html Apollo The Logician (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider either of those reliable sources? irishmedals.org seems to be a personal website. oldskerries is a historical society which accepts papers. I couldn't get to an editorial policy. Gab4gab (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Start-class article with room for expansion. With Ireland's "decade of centenary anniversaries" just commenced, quite likely more sourced will be published. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bastun: if there's going to be more published, then now is not the right time for the article. WP:NOTYET st 170e 13:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I would let you know that your link isn't what you think it is Apollo The Logician (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A moderately notable figure. According to this source he has a street named after him, and here we see that he was specifically honoured at a commemoration, and a plaque erected. Debbiesw (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, seems to meet GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - meets GNG, but still mainly more of a minor figure with localized notability. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concur with Debbiesw. Finnegas (talk) 15:42, 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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Starry vault[edit]

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

I really hope we can save this, but this substub as written, referenced to a Prezi and a a passing mention in a book (Angela K. Nickerson (July 2010). A Journey Into Michelangelo's Rome. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-8547-3. has a major problem: this term seems to be not-notable. I tried Google Books, Scholar, News, and general google: it is used, but not a lot, and the mentions are in passing. I cannot find this defined anywhere, and as such it seems not a real architectural term, just a nice phrase that lacks notability. Again, the topic is interesting, and perhaps someone can find better sources? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other sources available, but lacking time this week to go through my personal library or online sources I haven't added them, only what I found to support the Sistine Chapel statement. It's a widely used ecclesiatical design motif, and I was going to see what could be found to expand it into Islamic architecture. However, it peaked around the 13th century, so online sources are generally poor, as with many other topics relating to medieval architecture and design. Deletion discussions are not meant to be an alternative to sourcing, and quick nominations on topics like this short-circuit research in print. Given Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of the visual arts, I'm not keen on characterizing basic articles on design as "sub-stubs" (which this is not) and consigning them to deletion discussions. I know of at least one local Richard Upjohn church with a starry vault, so it's a recurring motif to at least the 19th century, but we're not going to find a monograph on starry vaults, it's just one of a menu of fundamental elements that belong in an encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We really need to do something about article structure in this area in general: Star Vault, a related (and somewhat confusing-to-laymen) topic, goes to a Swedish games company when it should be a disambiguation to at least a section in rib vault (which is unreferenced and copied from public domain, but is a fundamental architectural topic). I suppose capitalization helps to distinguish, but of the two topics one is ephemeral, yet has its own article. Acroterion (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Acroterion: A lot of sources are digitized. If you don't have time to go to library, may I point you in direction of Google Books and Library Genesis? Through I tried both, and I couldn't find a single source that would define the starry vault concept. All we have so far are mentions in passing, and those are IMHO not sufficient to confer notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am looking for sources. Does need more. Good sources are difficult to find. Am looking. Google has gobs of examples on starry vaults, but not much architectural info. dino (talk) 9:27 am, Today (UTC−8)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Significant architectural feature found in dozens, of not thousands of churches. Note that the article is about the feature, not the phrase. StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @StAnselm: If this is a significant feature, can you help find a single source that defines it? The fact it exists in many churches is unfortunately OR until we find a source that confirms that. Until then, I am afraid we don't have a single source to say this is a term used by architects, since sources we have are very poor (mentions in passing on blogs, tourist websites, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a source: "The usual mode of decorating the roofs and ceilings of churches was by an azure ground, studded with golden stars, which was common, from the earliest periods, as a natural and symbolical allusion to the heavens". The practice was adopted very early in England. It it is commonly found on wooden ceilings, but some traces have been found on stone-vaulted ceilings. St Anselm (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@StAnselm: I have limited net connectivity, so I cannot access the links above. But yiur quotes do not show that they use the term ' starry vault'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm I searched the linked books directly for the phrase "starry vault" as well as the word "starry" just in case, and the phrase just isn't in there. The books definitely show that some vaults were decorated with stars, but not that the phrase "starry vault" was ever used to describe those vaults specifically. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because the article is about the thing (ceilings decorated with stars) rather than the phrase. St Anselm (talk) 20:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, but the problem is that if we can't show that the phrase "starry vault" has ever historically been used to describe the thing "a ceiling vault covered in starry decorations", then titling the article "starry vault" is original research in the sense that we cannot attribute the concept (or the "phrase") to a verifiable outside source. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure - but then we just move it to a descriptive title, e.g. Star-painted ceiling. St Anselm (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as architectural feature. might need renaming. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is a poor article, but worth having (possibly renamed). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 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 moved to Draft:Chasing Safety (band). I'll mark the redirect for speedy. If deletion of the draft is also desired, please nominate it at WP:MfD. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Safety (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No third-party sources other than the usual music download and niche sites, plus WP:COI issue as biggest contributor is someone likely connected to the band as he/she has added Facebook links and article about equally non-notable album. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless someone can show how their albums pass Wikipedia:Notability (music) (if so, ping me so I can revise my vote), this fails GNG. Coverage limited to Facebook and press releases. Advertising spam as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Albums not released by a major label. Nothing on the charts. No elements met. Fails GNG and WP:BAND. Gab4gab (talk) 20:03, 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 02:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Score World Tour[edit]

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

A concert tour that didn't happen yet. "The first show of the tour was held at the Palladium in London, England, on 22 March 2017." No coverage except primary sources yet. Fancruft/advertising-> spam. I think we need a speedy deletion criteria for that (through I'd suggest speedy userfication, this may be notable - when in starts...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON, and article is poorly sourced; ticket sites are not suitable citations. Reads more like a concert poster than an article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 16:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NTOUR for lack of independent coverage by RS. Gab4gab (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inkurdish[edit]

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability. Cannot PROD - was contested previously because the page was created by a new user. Little improvement has been made since however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites) due to 0 non-primary references. WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability offered or to be found. Happy to revisit if evidence can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:12, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Horncastle[edit]

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

I don't believe this person is notable. Of the two sources on the article, one is clearly just a page full of search engine optimization terms, and the second is just a portal page for the content he's produced at The Guardian. The hits on his Google search are mostly just blogs that he has posted on, not independent coverage of himself as a person. Was PROD'd shortly after creation but PROD was contested because this is a new user's article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just someone doing their job. Not all journalists are notable. Fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant independent coverage. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 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. czar 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sulakshana (actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable actress. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - she has starred in a lot of notable films. Why are you saying that she is not notable? Spiderone 21:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Very famous South Indian actress. Here is an interview with The Hindu - [5]. She shares her name with a Hindi actress who is subjected to a lot of tabloid gossip. That is the reason why her Hindi counterpart hogs all the search results. Better references can be obtained if a person has the time to go through the results. Jupitus Smart 06:05, 15 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) 14:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. IMDb lists 29 roles. Only a few seem to be non-minor, but probably passes WP:ARTIST. Since the nominator didn't bother to explain why she is not notable (WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE is the same fallacy as saying ITSNOTABLE), in essence not providing any argument at all, I think this is an invalid AfD anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 350 plus films in four south Indian languages, with Times of India noting that she has done multiple acclaimed roles.[6] This is a keep per WP:NACTOR. Lourdes 18:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR as noted by Lourdes above. Gab4gab (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she meets WP:NACTOR, she is notable. --Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2015 CS Denkova-Staviski Cup[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Merging with the main article could also be a possibility. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 21 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) 14:46, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 CS Lombardia Trophy[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Merging with the main article could also be a possibility. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not an unremarkable event - not fitting of that criteria of deletion. It gets ISU points. Part of a series.Qwerty786 (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty786: And where do those ISU points fit on Wikipedia:Notability (sports)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 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) 14:46, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 CS Volvo Open Cup[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Merging with the main article could also be a possibility. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree! This is an event not an individual game. It gets ISU points. That is about games not events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty786 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:25, 21 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) 14:45, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 CS U.S. International Figure Skating Classic[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. Merging with the main article could also be a possibility. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree. This gets points for skaters and doesn't fit the criteria of deletion because it's a whole event not just one game.Qwerty786 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 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) 14:45, 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. The WP:V argument doesn't appear to have been successfully rebutted. T. Canens (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nyala Rinpoche[edit]

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

January 8 addition: "Changchub Dorje" or "Rigdzin Changchub Dorje" were mentioned as better search terms, so should be searched. --do ncr am 21:10, 8 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

Delete: fails GNG, for one thing. A Google search turned up mostly unreliable sites, pronunciation sites, wikia, etc. Little substantiated/substantiatable information. Does anyone believe he was 126 years old? Maybe I am a Philistine but ... Quis separabit? 20:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nyala Rinpoche, the Philistines by upon thee. Longevitydude (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you mean 1826? AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
delete only ref is an in-bubble hagiography; fails WP:Golden rule Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am finding it hard to verify the content. There is hardly anything in reliable sources - the best claims seem to be that the subject is a teacher of Namkhai Norbu. But notability is not inherited. The other interesting thing here seems to be the myth of longevity which I am unable to verify either - apart from blogs. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why those books in references are not reliable? Have you read those? It's 19th century case. How do you verify 19th century biographies? What are the Tibetan reliable and verifiable 19th century sources?Hitro talk 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- All above delete rationales are not valid when it comes to old and outdated topic like this. This article has references, they are books. It is a 19th century biography of a Tibetan origin. None of the participants in this discussion have read any of those books. Don't expect everything on Google searches. Hitro talk 20:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches are what we find for an acceptable and improvable article and since no one else has found and suggested this, there's no conceivable improvements, also there's nothing to suggest actual notability so that itself is an applicable deletion. From there, there's simply honestly nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 04:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete C'mon. He was the teacher of someone notable and he was elderly. He might have been especially elderly but that far-fetched claim is not verifiable in the way we define verifiablity. Even if taken in the very best light, this sentence
"If Rinpoche were to have been born in 1826, as is claimed by some, he would have been far older than the oldest man ever documented
suggests pretty strongly that this subject fails our requirements for a claim of notability. David in DC (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google book results. Top 4 books in this search result are related to the subject. I can preview only this one. Complete preview is not available for me for other books. Hopefully someone can preview the others. Please note "Nyala Rinpoche" is just an honorific title in Tibetan language. It would be better to search for sources using "Changchub Dorje" or "Rigdzin Changchub Dorje". I can find multiple mentions in different websites in different languages. Some of the results may be related to 18th century Karmapa Lama with similar name, Changchub Dorje, 12th Karmapa Lama. I don't think it's wise to delete this article without analysing all the available references. And yes, I do agree that date of birth is definitely dubious. Hitro talk 18:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So the name of the person this article is purportedly about does not appear in the article. And some of the sources may be about someone else. And the longevity claim is dubious. ~~WP:NUKE~~WP:TNT applies here. Maybe someone could write a legitimate article based on sources that aren't accessible online, but this is by no means that article. Deleting per the ~~WP:NUKE~~WP:TNT essay imposes no prejudice against creating a new Changchub Dorje article but there's so much junk here that I think the best course is delete and let someone start afresh. David in DC (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm gonna have to agree with David in DC on this one. Long time since we last talked, I bet DC will be very busy Friday. It's actually refreshing to know you're still on wikipedia cleaning up articles I used to get in trouble for. I'd invite Canadian Paula and DerbyCountyinNZ but that would be canvassing. I feel bad that we can't get their insight without breaking a rule. I guess our reasoning will have to do. Longevitydude (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Full name of the person is mentioned in the article. I managed to gather all the information about him only after reading this article, I was not aware of the subject before I came across this AfD. Sources can easily be distinguished between two people as they both have born in different centuries and are known for different things. Page move could be much better option than applying WP:TNT. Per WP:SOURCEACCESS, we can not reject reliable sources only because they are inaccessible. Hitro talk 19:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I found few more sources in google books. [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In these books, his name has been spelt as "Jangchub Dorje". Finally, I guess the subject is passing on WP:GNG, there are significant coverage available online in reliable sources. Hitro talk 20:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changchub Dorje is an important figure in the history of Dzogchen for many thousands of people around the world, and he is the root teacher of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche, arguably the most renowned Dzogchen teacher alive today. Although Changchub Dorje is less well known than some other figures in the Dzogchen tradition generally, there are many spiritual teachers of even lesser provenance listed in Wikipedia. A shaky article, yes, but delete, no. Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche was a professor in Italy for many decades and has produced dozens of books. In his published works, Norbu Rinpoche has recounted the history of Changchub Dorje. I would think these could serve as sources to put this article on firmer ground. Among the students of Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche there are some highly trained scholars and translators. I will alert them and see if someone can be found who is intimately familiar with the sources. Ssarasvati (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Ssarasvati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. It sounds like "delete" voters disbelieve the longevity, but if I am not mistaken the mythical longevity, whether true or not, adds to the notability of this topic. We have many articles on completely mythical figures. To dispute this article as a valid topic the fact of the myth existing must be disputed, instead. Which I think no one is disputing. --do ncr am 23:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (Striking keep to comment again below with new rationale after it was found that these two sources are about a different person with the same name. Cunard (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC) per the reliable sources found by HitroMilanese (talk · contribs). Here are two of the sources HitroMilanese found:[reply]
1. Palden Sherab, Khenchen (2008). The Dark Red Amulet: Oral Instructions on the Practice of Vajrakilaya. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications. p. 143. ISBN 1559399090. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  The book notes:
  About nine or ten generations after Guru Padmasambhava left Tibet, there lived a famous master named Langlab Jangchub Dorje, who was called "the phurba yogi." At the time of this story, he had already reached a high realization of Vajrakilaya practice, but from the ordinary point of view he was just a regular layperson. He worked as a shepherd and was rather poor.
2. Khenpo Jamyang, Nyoshul (2015). The Fearless Lion's Roar: Profound Instructions on Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. Translated by Christenson, David. Boston, Massachusetts: Snow Lion Publications. p. 105. ISBN 0834800195. Retrieved 2017-01-08.
  The book notes:
  For example, there was a guru who was transmitting the Dzogchen instruction manual known as Supreme Wisdom (Yeshe Lama; Ye shes bla ma). Among his disciples was a yogin called Jangchub Dorje, who was receiving these instructions along with a few other yogis. They would listen to the teachings at night with only a single butter lamp burning, so the room was quite dark. After receiving teachings in the experiential manner over a period of one year, this yogi went off where he met a woman who said, "Recently, you were receiving the teachings of the Yeshe Lama together with two or three yogis, and there was just one butter lamp burning. Are you reading the Yeshe Lama now?" The yogi was amazed. "Who told you?" he asked. The woman replied, "I came at night, transported upon the feather of a bird." It was definitely true that she had been there, and this story illustrates the magical powers of the dakinis.
Cunard (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the defnitions of passing mentions, not "significant discussion" as required. Jytdog (talk) 10:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says:

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.

I think "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" here. The first source discusses how the subject was "a famous master", was called "the phurba yogi", worked as a shepherd, and was poor. The second source tells a story about the subject. While neither source is very substantial, I consider them detailed enough to be able to write a brief article about the subject.

The second source was translated from Tibetan. Given the subject matter, the sources primarily will be in offline Tibetan sources which are difficult to obtain. The Tibetan sources are very likely to provide substantial coverage of the subject since one of the sources calls him "a famous master".

Cunard (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Jytdog, Last week, when you voted delete, you were not able to come across any of these sources and you cited WP:42 which seemed genuine that time though it leads to confusion normally. I know these sources were unable to be searched in first and usual attempt. Now, when these sources are on table, you are just backing up your !vote by calling these sources "passing mention". None of those references are near to what we call passing mentions at AfDs. And please explain, how this one is just a passing mention. I guess, a solid delete rationale is required now to get rid of this article. Although, the topic is 19th century Tibetan biography, we are still able to find several English sources about the subject. That matters per Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Hitro talk 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are brief mentions and also, to be frank, ridiculously in-bubble and hagiographic. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea about what you are expecting here as references, I assume a full length BBC documentary is the only source that can match your criteria. Hitro talk 20:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur that the sources are not significant and, when based for the specific subject, they're not convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (i voted "Keep" above) Some confusion/alternatives about the name of this person is more reason to have an article for that to be sorted out properly for the world. The disambiguating function is important. One Google book hit on "changchub dorje" is 2013 book "The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying" which has significant coverage about them, although I am not sure it is this Nyala Rinpoche or not. As a wikipedia reader, I would like for Wikipedia to provide the good function of sorting this stuff out. There are 5 Google books links mentioned in one posting above which I am not going to evaluate myself. There is Rigpawiki article on the person, which is a Wiki but is something, too. The best outcome of this AFD would be for the one or two more informed participants to follow up with some development of this article. By the way, I note one call for wp:TNT in comments above, which like any such call is a) an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the topic for Wikipedia and b) wp:disruptive, and IMO if it is the main argument of the AFD it should usually be followed by an immediate closure of AFD with Keep decision. --do ncr am 21:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. About the general fallacy of wp:TNT as an argument, see new essay wp:TNTTNT, which i was provoked into starting just now. :) --do ncr am 01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scuse long post without word in bold... This is a biography of a Tibetan who was active in the early to mid twentieth century. Internet searches by non-Tibetan speakers, using the Roman alphabet and google snippet view, are simply insufficient as a basis for a rational decision about this.
Some of the arguments for deletion are silly and weird. I don't recognise "in-bubble" as a reasonable or even intelligible criticism of this; all experts, in all subjects, are in-bubble for their specialist subject. An encyclopaedia that disregards the specialists for being in-bubble ought to be called "Bizarropedia".
Yes, okay, I'm a lifelong atheist and I'm deeply, trenchantly skeptical of religious sources, particularly insofar as they relate to claims of mystical powers; I think such claims require extraordinary evidence. But that doesn't mean delete them. An encyclopaedia is there to educate people, and there are good reasons to have articles on these claims and the people who make them (which is also why we have an article on bigfoot, for example). Wikipedia isn't Snopes; but we can usefully shine a light on some of the rubbish people publish.
The current version of the article is also silly and weird. It contains claims that are clearly ludicrous. I'll look you in the eye and tell you this bloke didn't live from 1826 to 1961 (let alone 1978!) The current text can't be allowed to stand.
Suggest closing as "no consensus" for the time being and taking it somewhere relevant like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tibet where you're likely to find someone who has access to print sources in Tibetan and the knowledge to read them.—S Marshall T/C 11:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I bet he was really born in 1926, definitely not 1826. If this claim is notable then so is the claim that my cat, Picatso, is a painter. Longevitydude (talk) 22:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThat's right, the guy who didn't believe afds is voting delete in a longevity afd for whatever that says. Anyway, his age is disputed, and there are no exact dates known. It seems he's only notable for claiming to be an age that has never been proven. I don't know why he is even part of the longevity project, no source that had an idea when he was born and a 17 year dispute over when he died(1961-1978). How are the two supposed death dates that far apart? Also, he has made no real contributions as far as an encyclopedia goes. Longevitydude (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article make no real claim of notability and is weakly sourced / unsourced. Sources presented at this AfD are passing mentions -- insufficient to build a balanced, NPOV article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @K.e.coffman:"Weakly sourced" how? This is not a company related article where you normally make third or fourth delete comment. Explain why those books are not considerable? Hitro talk 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The two books mentioned in the reference section of the article are authored by Namkhai Norbu. Both of them are available on Google books here and here. Search for "Changchub Dorje" within these books, you'll find substantial coverage about this person. I don't know whether all the participants have checked these books because in one of those books, it is mentioned that this person did live from 1826 to 1961. Hitro talk 21:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and analsysis of sources I'm sorry but the sources do not adequately verify the content. In some cases, the sources are not even about the subject but about a similarly named master. Let's have a look why the sources are problematic

Sources in the article

Norbu, Namkhai (1996). Dzogchen: The Self-Perfected State. - Not a third party source. The author Namkhai Norbu is a disciple of the subject. We require reliable third party sources
Norbu, Namkhai (2000). The Crystal and the Way of Light: Sutra, Tantra and Dzogchen. Not a third party source As above
Gyelse Tsewang Gyurme The Treasury of Lives (website)- no mention of subject
The First Adzom Drukpa, Drodul Pawo Dorje The Treasury of Lives (website) no mention of subject

Sources by Cunard

Palden Sherab, Khenchen (2008). The Dark Red Amulet: Oral Instructions on the Practice of Vajrakilaya. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications. p. 143. ISBN 1559399090. Retrieved 2017-01-08. - This is not about the subject, but rather about another master with a similar name (in the 11th century)
Khenpo Jamyang, Nyoshul (2015). The Fearless Lion's Roar: Profound Instructions on Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. Translated by Christenson, David. Boston, Massachusetts: Snow Lion Publications. p. 105. ISBN 0834800195. Retrieved 2017-01-08. As previous, this is not about the subject, but another similarly named monk

Other sources by HitroMilanese

Lingpa, Karma. The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying. North Atlantic Books. p. 29. ISBN 9781583945735. Brief mention and not a third party source - subject's student Namkhai Norbu is one of the contributors to the book
Norbu, Chogyal Namkhai. The Lamp That Enlightens Narrow Minds: The Life and Times of a Realized Tibetan Master, Khyentse Chokyi Wangchug. North Atlantic Books. ISBN 9781583945285. Not about the subject Rather it is about the The sixth Dzogchen Rinpoche, Jigdral Changchub Dorje (1935-1959)
Bultrini, Raimondo. The Dalai Lama and the King Demon: Tracking a Triple Murder Mystery Through the Mists of Time. Hay House, Inc. ISBN 9781401943554. brief mention, and that too repeats the words of student Namkhai Norbu The subject is simply mentioned in passing as a teacher of Namkhai Norbu here.
Rinpoche, Patrul. The Words of My Perfect Teacher: A Complete Translation of a Classic Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism. Rowman Altamira. ISBN 9780761990277. Not about the subject, but another Changjub Dorje born 1745 See page 402
Molk, David. Lion of Siddhas: The Life and Teachings of Padampa Sangye. Shambhala. ISBN 9781559398404. One sentence passing mention, also no indication is it about the subject. In fact, it is about a female mythical creature
Coleman, Graham. A Handbook Of Tibetan Culture: A Guide to Tibetan Centres and Resources Throughout the World. Random House. ISBN 9781473550223. Once sentence passing mention that the subject was a teacher of Namkhai Norbu
Davidson, Ronald M. Tibetan Renaissance: Tantric Buddhism in the Rebirth of Tibetan Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN 9780231508896. Not about the subject, but rather about someone who lived in the 8-11 century

However, none of this is significant coverage. Out of 13 references, you can that a lot of them are simply not about the subject. Other are not third party sources or offer passing mentions. I stand by my delete vote. If reliable third party sources have not discussed the subject in detail, we should not be having an article on the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A third relist is unusual, but more discussion seems appropriate in light of the late post from Lemongirl942 analyzing the sources. T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG, I don't see how a book can be discounted because they asked someone close to the subject to fact check and credited them a such? If so, pretty much every book that talks about someone at length would have to be discounted because they would likely ask questions and fact check to someone close to the subject if they were or are at all reputable. For me this makes these sources better, not worse. There are a lot of delete votes here but none really cite many valid reasons for doing so. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The book was written by the subject's student, where he mentioned his teacher. However, that cannot be used as a third party source. And there is pretty much no other sources available. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me he didn't write any of them, as you said yourself he is just a contributor probably because he helped write about his former teacher. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 07:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No notability and no reliable sources. CreativeMan1 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of reliable sources seems pretty well established. Glendoremus (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Well known Buddhist master who is better known as Changchub Dorje.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Well known Buddhist master"? How is the subject well known? Can you show some reliable third party sources? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Lemongirl942:, I am quite busy for next few days so I won't be able to do an extensive research on your analysis for now, but I will definitely post my elaborated response here before 28th. However, I counter checked your comments on two of the sources.

Palden Sherab, Khenchen (2008). The Dark Red Amulet: Oral Instructions on the Practice of Vajrakilaya. Ithaca, New York: Snow Lion Publications. p. 143. ISBN 1559399090. Retrieved 2017-01-08. - This is not about the subject, but rather about another master with a similar name (in the 11th century)

Khenpo Jamyang, Nyoshul (2015). The Fearless Lion's Roar: Profound Instructions on Dzogchen, the Great Perfection. Translated by Christenson, David. Boston, Massachusetts: Snow Lion Publications. p. 105. ISBN 0834800195. Retrieved 2017-01-08. As previous, this is not about the subject, but another similarly named monk

Following is the extract from the first book

About nine or ten generations after Guru Padmasambhava left Tibet, there lived a famous master named Langlab Jangchub Dorje

Guru Padmasambhava lived in 8th century. You may check the sources presented in the article for verification. So how does "After 9 or 10 generations" lead us to 11th century (as interpreted by you)? Doesn't it point us to a master who lived in 18th or 19th century? Hitro talk 11:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is 11th century. See the sentence, "During the same time, there was a master named La Rotsawa Dorje Drak"...who it turns out lived in the 11th century. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The single source in this article does not verify its content and does not provide the nontrivial coverage of the subject from multiple sources required by WP:GNG, and Lemongirl942's analysis shows that other sources mentioned in this AfD are also suspect. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a recommendation to close with no consensus and a strong suggestion that work is needed to address the question of whether notability can be verified via his multiple names and to contact the relevant wikiprojects to do some more upgrades. We have one of those individuals where sourcing falls mostly pre-internet but post 1923 so source material is not easy to locate, and in particular for Tibet post-1949 due to the upheaval in that nation at the time. This is a pretty good case of where a WP:HEY is needed by people knowledgable in the topic. Montanabw^(talk) 20:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The policy-based consensus to delete is clear. What exactly are these "pre-internet but post 1923" sources you mention? Please cite them. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many thanks to Lemongirl942 for actually rolling up her sleeves and assessing the sources we have rather than posturing over ones that hypothetically may or may not exist. We simply cannot verify anything about this person and I don't think there is a realistic prospect of us doing so any time soon. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying and The Dalai Lama and the King Demon: Tracking a Triple Murder Mystery Through the Mists of Time. I agree with AlessandroTiandelli333's analysis that the sources are usable because "pretty much every book that talks about someone at length would have to be discounted because they would likely ask questions and fact check to someone close to the subject if they were or are at all reputable". Cunard (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you read the source accurately here. If you actually did, you would realise that in "The Tibetan Book of the Dead: Awakening Upon Dying", the only mention is in an introduction which was entirely written by Namkhai Norbu - that too as a personal reflection. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is discussed in that seven-sentence paragraph. I consider the paragraph's telling a story about the subject to be nontrivial coverage of him. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my point. What I mentioned was that the entire introduction was written by Namkhai Norbu - who is the subject's student. This is not a third party source and cannot be used for GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lemongirl942's analysis of the sources shows that they are not reliable or independent (or even about the same person half the time!), and therefore cannot be used to support any claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:45, 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 keep. As withdrawn. No prejudice against a merger discussion, if this is better handled in a parent article on cultural materialism. czar 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit of culture[edit]

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

I can find this term mentioned a couple of times, but I can't see the coverage to indicate notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:00, 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) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First two hits from GBooks show it defined and discussed, clearly notable. Chris Barker (27 December 2007). Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice. SAGE Publications. pp. 59–. ISBN 978-1-4462-0018-6., Chris Barker (9 June 2004). The SAGE Dictionary of Cultural Studies. SAGE Publications. pp. 22–. ISBN 978-0-7619-7341-6.. Seriously, anything that has a dedicated entry in SAGE published Dictionary of anything is clearly notable. I'll ask the nominator to withdraw this (ping User:Boleyn). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Google book preview returns plenty of results that discuss the concept: link. Appears to be an important model in cultural studies. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination based on above Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:49, 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. czar 06:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper's sign[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to prove this is notable, Google put a signmaking company higher up on the returns too. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who tagged it for notability. Boleyn (talk) 09:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I believe notifying is Arthur Norton (1958- ) is contrary to WP:APPNOTE. It does not match any of the four accepted reasons for alerting"concerned editors" but rather contravenes "...must not be selected on the basis of their opinions." But you've been upfront about it so there's no reason to tag this for canvassing, I suppose. And you have notified the creator, in good faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: Canvassing is the worst policy we have. The more people are notified, the better. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was notified because I removed the notability tag. I agree to have it deleted. It seems like it was just a coat hanger article for a link to sports surgeon. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. The nominator seems to think you had applied it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 15 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) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Limiting the search to term+knee on Google Books gives 2 hits (here is the one with full preview: Bruce Reider; George Davies; Matthew T Provencher (15 December 2014). Orthopaedic Rehabilitation of the Athlete: Getting Back in the Game. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 1054–. ISBN 978-1-4557-3743-7.). The other one is Grace Maureen Chaisson-Stewart (1985). Depression in the Elderly: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Wiley. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-471-87059-3.. Both seem to be mentions in passing. Nothing in scholar. Nothing on the general web. Whatever this is, and whatever the source of this term is, it seems to fail notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the term seems to have been coined by Dr. David Cooper of the Knee Center. I can find no reference to it elsewhere online, so it fails the notability criteria. A "Cooper's Test" is a quite different, endurance-related test. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lvrd Blasian[edit]

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

Non notable artist, fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO Flat Out (talk) 11:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:32, 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) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per source searches, does not meet WP:BASIC and finding no evidence of WP:MUSICBIO being met. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:47, 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. Feel free to request restoration when principal photo has begun and the film is covered in multiple reliable, secondary sources. czar 06:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Betty Woot[edit]

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

Clearly not notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this new short film as being premature for Wikipedia... at best a case of Too Soon... and a problem suffered by many short films by and starring unknowns. We can allow a return only when and if WP:NF can be met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:48, 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) 14:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but Userfy for the editor. If NF is met, they can move it back later. If not, csd. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayam (film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. The three sources in the article are all unreliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 04:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, added references from mainstream media sources. Notable movie. --Soman (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(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, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Some regional films do not make a lot of promotion but it shows traces of notability --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 17:06, 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) 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I do appreciate Soman's effort in adding more reliable sources, I am unsure whether they are sufficient to establish notability (à la WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Of all the sources provided in the Article:

Idlebrain.com does not provide any kind of description to assess reliability or independence for the purpose of establishing notability.
Raaga.com is merely a music-hosting website, and the specific reference cannot support anything other than that some music exists for this movie that exists (at best).

That leaves the one Times of India news articles, and the two The Hindu news article. Of these, "Gazala scripts her way to Vijayam" (Times of India) [12] is an interview with one of the actresses in the film, and does not mention the film but in passing. The same can be said about "Picture perfect" (The Hindu) [13]. Neither of them therefore contribute to establishing WP:SIGCOV. That just leaves one source, "Message-oriented film" (The Hindu, Metro Plus Hyderabad, May 12, 2003) [14]. Even on the assumption of good faith that this source is reliable and independent, I'm not sure whether one source which discusses the film in detail as a main topic is sufficient to establish notability of the subject in this instance. A Google search on the topic is unmanageably cluttered with irrelevant sources, but does not seem promising in providing additional independent reliable sources to support notability of this film. Nor do any of the sources meet other evidence of film notability, which would have at least given a presumption of notability.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 15:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find myself agreeing with Talk2chun's comments. I was unable to find an editorial policy for Idlebrain.com and the author was not identified. If Idlebrain can be shown to be an independent RS or other RSs are found I would reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 20:50, 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OSU Open Source Lab[edit]

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

Organization of dubious notability. No evidence of general notability or notability for organizations guidelines. Essentially an advertisement. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a department at a university. See here, stating "Oregon State University is giving its Open Source Lab a major promotion, moving it from a services role within the university into an academic department as part of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science. The switch will raise the Corvallis lab’s profile and involve dozens more students every year in a program that helped make Oregon a global hub for open source activity." Thus, I believe the proper section we should be looking at is Parts of schools and organizations, and if we are to follow the guidance there, the requirement for keeping this article is "Faculties, departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are generally not considered notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field." So, has this lab made a significant contribution to its field? The article I linked would suggest that it quite possibly has. "For a time, its servers hosted the kernel for most influential open source project, the Linux operating system, and the lab continues to host about 75 others. The lab’s sponsors include IBM, Facebook and Google, which contributed $300,000 to the lab last year." here is a profile on the lab from linux.com. There's a couple more I found while Googling but the sources are dubious. In any case, I'm leaning towards weak keep pending further comments. VegaDark (talk) 05:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not Wikipedia policy or guidelines; it merely describes the general results of AfD's concerning schools.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity. Michael Ten (talk) 23:04, 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) 14:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While I don't doubt the OSU Open Source Lab's importance, there aren't enough independent and reliable sources to establish notability of this topic. Looking at the sources provided in the Article:

References to the Open Source Lab's website are not considered independent sources, and thus cannot help to establish notability.
References to "CONNECT", "Fossology", "Sugar Labs", "OSL Ftp Map", "PowerDev Environment Access", "Ganeti", "Pydra", "Muddle", "Touchscreen", and "Maintain" cannot support the notability of OSU Open Source Lab as such (per WP:INHERITORG, notability is not inherited).
Finally, the external link to GOSCON (which incidentally has linkrotted), would clearly not be independent, as it was an annual event conceived and hosted by OSU Open Source Lab [15].

So far for resources already in the Article. On the basis of my own Google search and the references cited by VegaDark in his comment above, there are a few potential sources available. However, each of these sources have their own issues making them potentially unsuitable to establish notability:

Linux.com news post [16] (cited above): seems to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:IS, but it is unclear to what extent the editorial policy of Linux.com satisfies WP:RS.
Fox12 Oregon (KPTV) [17]: Assuming independence and reliability of Fox12 Oregon/KPTV in good faith, the only reference to OSU Open Source Lab (linked to) seems like a trivial mention, and in any case not significant enough to establish notability.
Silicon Florist [18]: Blog site by non-notable blogger, and therefore not enough for WP:RS.
Journal article in Technology Innovation Management Review [19]: Source clearly contains significant coverage, and the reliability of the source is likely derived from the journal and its editorial policy. However, the journal article was written by Anthony Casson and Leslie Hawthorn, both with ties to OSU Open Source Lab. This seems to go against the required independence, and I'm not sure whether the editorial policy of TIM Review could negate that.
The Oregonian (Oregon Live) [20]: the source is a blog post, written by a journalist from the Oregonian (Mike Rogoway), as part of the blog series "Silicon Forest". As I'm unable to determine whether the Oregonian has editorial discretion here, I must treat it as any other blog post. Therefore, the source does not meet WP:RS, despite clearly meeting WP:SIGCOV.

In conclusion, based on the assessment above, I cannot but !vote delete. The importance of this topic in the open source community, however, makes me wonder whether other reliable, independent sources exist which could establish the topic's notability. Seeing as I haven't found any during my search, my decision stands for now.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 16:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Talk2chun, while The Oregonian article is within Silicon Forest which they classify as a blog, it certainly appears as if it would be subject to the exception to WP:RS as "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call "blogs", and these may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professional journalists or professionals in the field on which they write, and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." The author is a journalist, and all appearances are that this article is subject to the Oregonian's editorial control. The subheader for the Silicon Forest blog is "News on Oregon tech companies from The Oregonian's Mike Rogoway." I highly doubt that they would brand something not subject to their editorial control as news. I will also note that the Silicon Forest section is accessible from the Oregonian's front page in the menu under News by topic -> Business which further indicates they are branding posts under this blog as news. VegaDark (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki per Michael Ten. I haven't actually researched this topic, and I don't know anything about Wikiversity; I'd never even heard of it before this AfD. So, my comment here is really just, Given a choice between deletion and moving it to another wiki which might be a more suitable home, transwiki seems the better option. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further consideration, and reading the questions from talk2Chun, below, striking my transwiki suggestion, and changing it to Weak Delete. Weak because I haven't put any effort into searching for sources, but just from reading the article, it doesn't seem like one that we need. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To those who are suggestion a Transwiki to Wikiversity, I would like to ask you a few questions (as I am also considering whether a Transwiki would be possible):

How do you think that the content of this Article could contribute to Wikiversity's mission (i.e. to create and host a range of free-content, multilingual learning materials/resources, for all age groups and learner levels or to host learning and research projects and communities around existing and new materials), or it's scope?
Do you think that the sources cited in this Article, and perhaps other available uncited sources would meet the (somewhat different) requirements of Wikiversite in terms of citing sources, reliable sources or verifiability?
If Transwikied, what would be the odds of the transwikied page being deleted at Wikiversity under their own criteria for speedy deletion (especially #1.No educational objectives or discussion in history) or otherwise deleted per their deletion policy?

As I don't really see an added value for the Wikiversity project in the Article currently under discussion, I could not support a Transwiki !vote if it will just end up being deleted there instead.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 17:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a school lab. SwisterTwister talk 02:29, 30 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 00:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Placid Ice Dance International[edit]

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

Unremarkable event. The article also relies on one reference. Also fails WP:SPORTSEVENT Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline is talking about an individual game/series, this article covers multiple years. I've added another reference. Hergilei (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The international governing body for skating seems to think this event is important enough to include on their calendar, so I'm willing to say this is a notable event. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:37, 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 08:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 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) 14:03, 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 02:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedi Edney[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NGYMNAST —Мандичка^YO 😜 02:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NGYMNAST. She's a two-time Junior Olympics national champion. Hmlarson (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmlarson: Junior Olympics is not a significant event and does not meet the criteria set by WP:NGYMNAST. It is not the Youth Olympics but a domestic U.S. competition below the elite (international) level. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I was looking more at the bullet point above that one. "Junior gymnasts are deemed notable if they meet any of the criteria below (females only):

won an individual gold medal at the junior national championships for any of the following countries: USA, Russia, China, Romania Hmlarson (talk) 02:08, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for gymnasts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no actual significant events considering the only one close to it is for starting athletes, therefore unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 23:15, 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) 14:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from what I see her J.O. gold was part of a team competition and not a personal all round gold. There is not really any significan coverage of her ongoing career. Definitly fails GNG. Jbh ^Talk 16:32, 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 House of Haldane (fictional). Any useful content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion, should that page survive its current AfD; if not, the redirect would be simply deleted along with it. T. Canens (talk) 14:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cinhil Haldane[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to House of Haldane (fictional). Maybe that should go in the long term too, but while it exists... Josh Milburn (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unconvincing nomination. Andrew D. (talk) 10:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the nomination and should be discounted as such. TTN (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It addresses the nomination directly. It's awful. Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is either notable or not notable. I doubt a laundry list of WP:N, WP:WAF, WP:NOTPLOT would change anything in your eyes. If you fail to address that assertion, you have no argument and thus your opinion should be discounted. TTN (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, at best the characters should all be merged into a list of short biographies, they don't need a stand alone article. Longevitydude (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominations should explain why an article is not notable. If more detail is provided, I will happily reconsider my vote. 1292simon (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic doesn't have sources and nobody can provide sources, it fails WP:N. I don't know if there is much more that can be said. TTN (talk) 01:56, 21 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) 14:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. None of the Keep arguments address policy--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Comment (continued from above) We should be looking at the potential for the article, not its current content. To provide some direction for the AfD process, I suggest the nomination should propose how WP:NOTPLOT applies (I think Andrew D is implying similar). 1292simon (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of whether it can be better written, it's still not notable.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to House of Haldane (fictional). I searched "Cinhil" on Google Books and found that, other than references to Kurtz's books themselves, the listed items are either (i) Kurtz talking about her character in interviews or (ii) entries in various encyclopedias of fantasy fiction. In the latter cases, the entries appear to be merely non-substantive re-iteration of in-universe details. In all, I found nothing to suggest that this character has been the subject of substantial third-party coverage (such as has been accorded to, say, Superman or Sherlock Holmes). NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTPLOT; this is only plot summary and cites no third-party sources; notability is not inherited from the series; a merger is inappropriate because the merge target has the same problems and I am also nominating it for deletion. Sandstein 14:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft created a decade ago and still lacking a single source. Articles about fictional characters require evidence of having been discussed in reliable secondary sources. The fact that a character is in a series of novels ≠ notability. Dr. Watson and Nancy Drew are good examples.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:36, 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 keep. Further discussion about a potential merge can occur on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of online map services[edit]

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

Indiscriminate collection of external links violating WP:ISNOT (especially WP:LINKFARM). Randykitty (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are a few blue linked entries which would be enough to satisfy WP:LISTN so the article just requires cleanup. Full support for deleting every single list entry that uses an external link as per WP:NOTLINKFARM. Which would be approximately 80% of them. Ajf773 (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — agree with Ajf773, this needs a cleanup as a list rather than deletion. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with both points as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed all external links and redlinks. Many of those links were to different pages on just one website. Unfortunately, after cleanup, almost no content is left. If people think this is worht saving, merging to an appropriate target (as "see also", for example) may be better. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page Web mapping links to this one under "See also." Is that a good reason to keep this page, or perhaps this page can be merged to it?Pfifferling22 (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like a reason to merge it there. --Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 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 redirect to Deryni novels. Useful content, if any, may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan McLain[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is nothing but plot summaries, and the only sources are the novels the character is from themselves. Searching around, I can find no sources for this character outside of fansites. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Profiled in Dragon Magazine (#078, October 1983, p. 40) as part of the Deryni adaptation for AD&D 1st edition. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Was the character described in a real world context in a non-trivial manner? If not, it's worthless. The adaptation of a work into another medium deserves mention on the article of the work. That a character appears in that adaptation is trivial. TTN (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Every time a notable fictional work references a previous independent fictional work, that contributes to the notability of the work so referenced. Spaceballs supports the notability of the original Planet of the Apes, for example. Jclemens (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a cameo or reference, not an adaptation. Straight adaptations from one medium to another do not inherently add to a character's notability. If a book is adapted to a play, movie, and video game, that means nothing for the individual characters. It only opens up more possibility for reliable sources to talk about the characters. Materials talking about the adaptation do not count if they are only mentioning the character in the fictional context of the adaptation, worthless beyond confirming that said adaptation exists. Your source below simply has a small in-universe description of each character and character builds for them. That's not notability. It would be a great source for the main article, but not for those characters mentioned within. TTN (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some information about what is in the Dragon article would be useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I won't link to copyrighted works but googling "Dragon 78 pdf" will get you a copy of the official PDF that looks like the one from the Dragon Magazine Archive (which I own); the issue is centered around Psionic powers, and includes new rules and a new character class, both Deryni-inspired, and a write-up of Deryni as a race in D&D, along with a listing of the major characters' D&D stats, from pp. 38-40, including McLain as the last one. Note that at the time the article was published, Kurtz had only published 6 Deryni novels. Jclemens (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge....into "List of major characters in the Deryni series," a Wikipedia article that does not now exist. But List of minor characters in the Deryni series does exist, so an enterprising editor can make an article for the majors and put Duncan there. This character may be a big deal in the series, but has no claim to WP:GNG. See also MOS:FICT and WP:NCHAR (dormant), which both prescribe "out-of-universe" descriptions of fictional characters, something this article does not do. DonFB (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment of a banned user].
- That comment is both unhelpful and reliant upon inaccurate claims. If you have an argument in support of keeping the article which refers to the merits of the article/subject, please present it. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This IP address seems to follow TTN's afds a lot.He even went so far as to compare the nominator to Jeffrey Dahmer. Longevitydude (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - [Comment of a banned user].
Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment refers to the series, but does not address the actual subject of the article. How is it relevant?--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Deryni_novels. Not important enough to stand alone. All the sources literally come from Katherine Kurtz. Longevitydude (talk) 22:01, 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) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Deryni_novels. Excessively detailed plot summary sourced only to the fiction itself. Nothing worth merging. Reyk _YO! 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no indication that this character is independently notable. A character from any novel may become so, of course, but I find no indication either on this page or in a quick search with a couple of likely keywords that Duncan McLain has attained notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Jclemens that the Dragon source is actually a pretty good one. If another good third-party source could be identified, I would support keeping the article, but, right now, I'm leaning towards a merge. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect to an appropriate article. As in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/House of Haldane (fictional), this is only plot summary, no third-party sources, no indication of notability of this one character (as opposed to the series as a whole). Sandstein 12:51, 30 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 and move page to Poon Choi Ying Chi to rename the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christy Or[edit]

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

Delete Does not meet WP:RS Margaretver (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Talk:Christy Or --Ochloese (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but not under this title I did some research and it appears "Christy Or" is only her rumored name which she never confirmed. She is known by her stage name "Poon Choi Ying Chi" and I think the article should be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. Timmyshin (talk) 07:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as although I'll note the nominator has now been CU-confirmed as part of a farm campaign, there's still nothing in this article which amounts to substance or an otherwise convincing article, since the sources are simply mere news; naturally, there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Timmyshin. Googling her Chinese name "盤菜瑩子" yields more than 100,000 results and tons of independent coverage. -Zanhe (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with rename. The cited articles do not support the name; this is definitely not the name by which this person is known. I wouldn't even have a redirect, because nobody is going to look for information on the subject as "Christy Or." Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; ambivalent about renaming. I think the sources on the article already demonstrate sufficient coverage. Deryck C. 17:34, 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 Brotherband. This close only pertains to Slaves of Socorro, because none of the other articles were tagged with the {{Afd}} template. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slaves of Socorro[edit]

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

Not notable book, appears to fail WP:BOOK and WP:NOTPLOT being an unsourced, summary-only article. Could not find secondary sources to support. -- Whats new?^(talk) 12:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brotherband. Also redirect the other books in this series as lacking individual coverage in reliable sources:

Υπογράφω (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All to Brotherband, although that is not a particularly impressive article either. John Flanagan (author) might be a better target. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge up all to Brotherhood. Does not seem notable in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 10:40, 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 Inauguration of Donald Trump#Make America Great Again Welcome Celebration concert. While most votes are for "delete", their rationales generally support inclusion of some content in the Inauguration of Donald Trump article. (non-admin closure) f eminist 16:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make America Great! Welcome Celebration[edit]

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

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS article which doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Delete or merge a couple sentences to Inauguration of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 11:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The encyclopedia does not need an independent article about a party that people will forget within a week. The information could be summarized in one or two sentences in the inauguration article.- Mr X 12:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 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) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As the creator of the Article, I need to add a couple of things to the article, including the complete lineup and its reception. Several sources have reviewed the concert including The Atlantic, New York Times, and LA Times. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 13:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weak merge per the above, this isn't like We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration at the Lincoln Memorial, for example, which is a rather complete article, but I don't see a lot that is worth merging. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's stop acting like the tabloid press and deciding that anything and everything with a vague connection to Donald Trump is inherently notable. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. AusLondonder (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to short section under subhead "inagural Events" at Inauguration of Donald Trump. There does not seem to be enough here to support a separate article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, existence of article reflects recentism, no enduring notability. The mere existence of press coverage at the time of an event is not sufficient basis to create an article. Mélencron (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cruft. Merger is unnecessary since Inauguration of Donald Trump already has a brief, appropriate mention of this. Neutrality^talk 22:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Neutrality: @Mélencron: @E.M.Gregory: Several of the bands in question, including 3 Doors Down and Toby Keith have returned to the Billboard charts as a result of the Concert, as seen in this Spin Article, giving the concert some independent notability . Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:34, 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 no consensus. Opinions are split between keep on the one side and merge/delete on the other. Although the "keep" side is in the majority, it does not have clear consensus, particularly considering that several "keep" votes consist of rather perfunctory references to the media coverage without discussing the other side's arguments that this topic might be more suitably covered as part of existing articles. Perhaps a new discussion after some time, after the initial wave of editing and reporting about the presidential inauguration has subsided, might be useful. Sandstein 08:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeploraBall[edit]

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

Yet another WP:NOTNEWS article which doesn't pass the WP:10YT. Delete or merge a couple sentences to Inauguration of Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 11:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WBEZ Chicago Radio Program (for weekend of Jan/21/2017) discussed this. It is *not* merely a part of the inauguration of Trump in 2017. Rather, it is a key explanation in the campaign for and election of Trump. It's not about a one-day event, but a campaign of focused trolling for Trump.
Keep: Alt-Right Celebrates Trump at 'Deploraball,' Says Media Is Next Target --Newsweek --Guy Macon (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: I find the arguments of Drmies sufficiently compelling to strike my !vote above. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (From the Article Creator): There are several sources that describe the event independently of the ongoing Trump protests such as Rolling Stone, Wired, New York Magazine, and New York Times. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS though I can be swayed if more sources are brought forth.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: Here are several more sources that discuss the event apart from the protests: Huffington Post "Inside (and Outside) The Alt-Right’s Inaugural Celebration", The Atlantic "The 'New Right' and the 'Alt-Right' Party on a Fractious Night", Business Insider "The 'Deploraball' bash laid bare the fractious tension between the 'new right' and the 'alt right'" and Time Magazine "Inside Gays for Trump’s Deploraball Dance Party" (Refrencing a second "DeploraBall" at Potomac, Maryland. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Neutral in light of these sources, though I'm still not convinced that this will still be significant in five years.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A balanced encyclopedia should cover both sides. 93.224.111.142 (talk) 09:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS One can quickly find international media coverage: Finanznachrichten.de, Welt.de, 20minutes.fr ...

Keep:. I would like to have said merge, with the content merging into an article about the whole re-use of Clinton's "deplorable" attack - but no such article currently exists. The subject deserves more than just a single sentence mention in Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that! (says the guy who had to debate for weeks before fellow editors admitted that yes, Clinton's "deplorables" remark was a thing) — JFG ^talk 00:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I also debated in the talk pages for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016 regarding Clinton's "deplorables" remark. In fact, I started a lengthy RfD Discussion that can be seen in Archive 8. The term, "Deplorables", is still used by news sources after the election. Here are some example articles to start an independent article regarding Clinton's "Basket of deplorables" comment: CNN: "Clinton's 'deplorables' comment 'definitely could have alienated' voters" (December 4, 2016), Financial Times: "Year in a Word: Deplorables" (December 26, 2016), Wall Street Journal: "Doubling Down on 'Deplorable'" (December 9, 2016), The Guardian: "A morning with 'adorable deplorables': why Trump supporters are optimistic" (January 20, 2017). Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: Be bold, create it! I'm sure there are plenty of relevant analyses of this moniker by now. It's certainly way more encyclopedic than some celebration party in DC… — JFG ^talk 01:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: I started on the article; I will expand the "Background" and "Reactions" section. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But I think I will wait a little bit before changing my vote to merge. There seems to me to be too much emphasis on the phrase's origin in it. Though Clinton set it in motion, its usage has had almost nothing directly to do with her since them. So I think the bulk of the content should be about its post-Clinton speech usage. It is an important example of Reappropriation. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recentism (but probably not in violation of WP:NOTNEWS); first two rationales in this discussion are extremely weak and the one by the IP is completely irrelevant. Likely not to provoke lasting news coverage in future, if any or maintain enduring notability, in any case. I'd note that I might be inclined to believe that Koblenz summit deserves an article by similar standards, though. Mélencron (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Basket of deplorables, now there's an article for that (thanks Yoshiman6464. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: The details of the article deal with more than "Deplorables"; the article also deals with members of the Alt-right, the ongoing Trump protests, and sister celebrations. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to inauguration of Donald Trump - can be discussed in that context. Neutrality^talk 16:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: The event wasn't officially held by the Trump administration. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yoshiman6464: Yes, but it was clearly associated with the inauguration. (Note that protests are also not officially sanctioned, but they are discussed in the inauguration article). Neutrality^talk 20:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on provided sources. Cards84664 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if you must, a redirect as Neutrality suggests. Or somewhere else. Of course there are sources: every partisan fart is sourced. That doesn't make it notable. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by sources. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen)(ZOOM) 09:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I'm concerned these sources prove the event happened, as one event in a series of many events--not that it was of encyclopedic significance. A few minutes on a radioshow, a short article or two making fun of the guests and the name, that's about it. Drmies (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drmies: The sources in question describe the event outside of the protests such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Time Magazine. Most small political events do not receive that national coverage. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (From the Article Creator): To the individuals who want to Delete or Merge this article such as Mélencron, Drmies, JFG, User:Neutrality, and Tiptoethrutheminefield, the event had been covered more recently by NBC News (Regarding the Gays for Trump event) and Gizmodo (with more details regarding the event). Furthermore, according to the NBC article, there will be another "Gays for Trump" Deploraball on July 4th. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 20:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note That the Deploraball is in the news because D.C. police were given a covertly filmed videotape (filmed by right-wing activists, non-violent activists) of left wing activists at a DisruptJ20 meeting plotting to disrupt the Deploraball by spreading acid. One activist in the film has been arrested. I have added press accounts to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that reliable sources don't talk about acid--they talk about "stink bombs". Quite a difference. Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do think that the arrest makes notability a slam-dunk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? An arrest is all it takes to become encyclopedic? Drmies (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The arrest, on charges that the protestors plotted to "activate the sprinkler system and deploy acid that can burn skin and lead to loss of vision into the ventilation system" at this Ball (along with material already on the page,) does take notability out of the category of moot and move it into clear notability, yes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

E.M. Gregory, no, simply no. A conviction, maybe. An arrest, no. You can't be serious. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should refrain form disrupting this discussion by removing material about the planned acid attack form the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which edits you're talking about, but there is nothing that says an article can't be edited while at AfD. Please be more specific. Drmies (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what you mean now: the unreliable Washington Times uses that phrasing. The more acceptable sources call it a stink bomb. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Dmries is incorrect, the phrasing I quote above about "acid" is from the Washington Post here: [21].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. This is an article about a party with absolutely no lasting historical significance or relevance. AusLondonder (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The encyclopedia does not need an independent article about a party that people will forget within a week. The information could be summarized in one or two sentences in the inauguration article.- Mr X 01:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The agenda is simple and reflects MSM partisanship -- support Anti-Trump actions (Category:Protests against Donald Trump) which "of course" are encyclopedic -- and belittle support for Trump, and take care that it will be forgotten as soon as possible. 93.224.110.76 (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal. Feel free to nominate protest articles for deletion. Some of them are already at AfD. — JFG ^talk 12:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. There sure is no cabal or conspiracy at Conservapedia either. But the adamant illusion of NPOV is found at many places. 93.224.110.76 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My agenda is that of the encyclopedia. I was very, very happy to see a wholesale pruning of the plethora of Occupy articles a while ago. Drmies (talk) 19:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department announced the arrest of Scott Ryan Charney -- one of the three people shown on a Project Veritas video -- for Conspiracy to Commit an Assault.[22][23] --Guy Macon (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I don't see why a single arrest would make the ball notable. It doesn't make the person or the outfit they belong to notable either. Flash in the pan. News, nothing more. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant facts & Redirect to Inauguration of Donald Trump. This is a pretty glaring case of WP:RECENTISM and it clearly fails WP:10YT. We need to put the brakes on the wave of new articles related to Donald Trump. Far too much of this stuff does not warrant stand alone articles. Seriously. There was a party and it got some news coverage. Big deal. On the other side of the coin, just how many articles do we need dealing with the various anti-Trump protests that have been going on? -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that article needs a major revision as post-game analysis such at The weakening of the 'alt-right': how infighting and doxxing are taking a toll, in yesterday's The Guardian continues, here: [24]. E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTNEWS AusLondonder (talk) 21:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been discussed in a number of publications including Business Insider (linked earlier in the discussion) and Politico as illustrating or fomenting tensions in the alt-right, even before the event actually happened; it's now getting a fresh round of coverage in mainstream media due to the involvement of comedian Drew Carey's 11-year-old son. (Edited for link fixes)TheBlinkster (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It might be near the borderline, but I think this event has achieved enough lasting notability to be more than a passing news story. It's still being mentioned in articles like this one from a few days ago[25] (not largely focused on the event, but discussing it in the context of the 'alt-right' in general). There are going to be lots of pro-Trump and anti-Trump events in future, and many of them won't be notable, but I believe this one was. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 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 delete and redirect to Muhammad Ali, Prince of the Sa'id. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noal Zaher Shah[edit]

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

Yeah, I know royalty makes some people hot. This person seems to be unremarkable hello fodder. She got married and had children. Truly remarkable, not. Essentially, an ill-tempered WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is a plagiarism of Muhammad Ali, Prince of the Sa'id, but this could have been fixed without starting an AfD. Instead a BLPPROD was removed 18 minutes after the article was created, so as to start an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 05:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect The content contributor is not currently active on Wikipedia, so there is no immediate prospect of having an article here, including getting proper attribution and WP:V sourcing. No prejudice to incubation, re-creation, or to improvement of the coverage of the topic at the target article. Unscintillating (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT; this content is not suitable for inclusion at this time. No prejudice to recreation with RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 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 Procedural close. This should either be a requested merge or requested move discussion. Pinging MbahGondrong as AfD intiator to begin the request. (non-admin closure) — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 00:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Liga 1 (Indonesia)[edit]

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

The tournament is not a new tournament. It is a new name for the Indonesia Super League, which needs to be renamed and updated. Similar case in 2016 with First Professional Football League (Bulgaria). MbahGondrong (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. There is no new competition. Federation just change the name of the competition. Yogwi21 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close This should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 20:43, 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 01:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McKenna[edit]

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

Has had a small part in one indie film, fails WP:TOOSOON as all coverage appears solely related to that role. JamesG5 (talk) 07:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON can't fail here, it's an unsourced BLP that has no RSes just trivial mentions and IMDB profiles. TOONSOON for a non-notable Indian actor. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT: no sources listed at all and no attempt to establish notability, K.e.coffman (talk) 20:46, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cache Olson[edit]

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

Lacks notability. WP:BLP1E John from Idegon (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:31, 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) 16:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails BLP1E. Lepricavark (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. The performance at the inaugural ball may end up being a "break out" performance for Olson. However we cannot base that on an article written before the performance. I did find a KSL article on Olson and the performance (but KSL and the Deseret News have a joint news room, so that may not count as a seperate source), and also one from Utah's Fox 13. If this propels him to a high level DJing career, or if other events do, than yes we can have an article on him. But right now he is a 16-year-old who is a low level DJ, true he has performed widely, but since the inagural ball he is performing at is "by far his biggest performance" as Fox 13 put it, I don't think there is justification for an article on him. My serch for DJ Olso only really brought up these sources mentioned above. Olso may become a notable DJ, and he may be propelled to bigger things by his performance yesterday, but we don't know that. He is not notable yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The opportunity he was given to perform might ultimately lead to notability down the road, but the sources here and what I could find in a Google search don't meet the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 22:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, too soon. Possibly could add into an article about the inaugural balls. South Nashua (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:54, 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 keep. Tone 10:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty of Organisation Studies in Novo mesto[edit]

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

Let's set aside that this article is written pretty much like an advertisement (tagged with {{advertisement}}, moving on). The problem is - is this notable? I've prodded it, and the creator disputed it, pointing to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools. But he claims this is an independent institution. Sadly, the article is poorly written, and it is hard to figure this out, but the word faculty suggests an organizationl unit of a larger university. And the Faculty's webpage, http://www.fos.unm.si/, is part of http://www.unm.si/, which seems to be a university, albeit one missing an English homepage (or an English Wikipedia entry). The Slovenian entry at sl:Univerzitetno in raziskovalno središče Novo mesto is uninspiring but if translated, that article could likely survive, per common outcomes for degree-granting institutions. But what we have here is an advert-like for a faculty of such institution, and as such, without even a merge target (not that there is much to merge from this ad), I repeat my suggestion to delete this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the substance that is expected of these subjects and likewise no convincing signs of meaningful improvements, hence the solution for challenging articles with no better signs is delete, especially when there's been no better focus of our basic policies. SwisterTwister talk 07:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete as repeated argument - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools - the faculty and its works are recognised by the state and international scientific community (surely in the extend which belongs to something established not even 10 years ago): Knowing Slovenian education system - (which the Piotrus has obviously 0 understanding of) - allowes indepndedn faculties - which are not part of universities. www.unm.si is nor was and article does not refere itself to this web page. www.unm.si stands for the University space of Novo mesto - which was (this thing is over and thus not mentioned in article)promoting study in novo mesto where set of independent faculties exist. sl:Univerzitetno in raziskovalno središče Novo mesto was thwe centre which is closed down by the decree of municipality and since 2014 unrelated to the institution in question or any other institution in the region which is listed at www.unm.si. Regarding the mean comment on advertising nanture of the article (which came accross intervention on responding the sources issue) - i believe there is absolutely zero advertising - unless you dispuite each educational institution presenting its work - i belive article is wrirtten in objective manner and without any other intention but presenting the nature and work. tell me the difference with: e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOBA_Faculty_of_Applied_Business_and_Social_Studies_Maribor which refferes directly to promotion material - e.g. reference 14, 15 and 16 referes directly to promotional material. Sorry guys: i believe the article surely needs development, am happy for any factual improvement but under the fact that it goes under the School understanding of notability as well as I am sure that there is not a word of promotion, however i will be happy to oblige with more references and information - in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Update:Adding new comments to the issue: Based on change of the argument regarding the Advertisement - I removed this remark. Additionally added more external sources supporting the notability issue dismissal. Categorisation was added. I am trying to prove notability )in the proper sense - via proving academic results and calling ong the mentioned notability rule understanding in the case of education institutions.)in this manner Non connected sources (information Commissioner of RS, WorldCat, RENET, DOAJ, Erasmus+,...) are providing reference of the Facutly to exist and operates. I agree on further improvements. Unfortunately - the establishment of the faculty is problematic from the perspective Slovenian higher education development possibilities - so it is hard to write it more clear and keep the actual picture. IOM is private organisation with no proper referencing that i could provide anything but link to business register. Univerzitetno in raziskovalno središče (repeating - it is not university but private company established, and destroyed/replaced by municipality Novo mesto) had some role in the time of the existance but since 2014 - this goes to the Municipality of Novo mesto. I will try to rewrite the intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update 2: In the sense of fairness - i was checking the page Piotrus is exposing - unm.si - this web is misleading since 2014 (transfer of establisher rights is now referenced in the article in question) and is at no point the reference of the article in question (faculty of organisation studies in novo mesto). However, i see that the slovenian wiki on the URS needs strong explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colcody. Let's discuss the key issue here, which is - what kind of organization this is. You linked DOBA Faculty of Applied Business and Social Studies Maribor for comparison. DOBA is a business school, which is " a university-level institution that confers degrees in business administration or management". That, of course, is notable. But for the article discussed here the lead of that article and your explanation is still lacking a proper explanation of what this is. As I said before, the common English usage for the word faculty is a subdivision of a university, so - not usually notable. Setting aide any peculiarities of Slovakian educational system, surely there must be a recognized English word that we can use to describe this institution. So, my simple question remains: what is it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you bringing Slovakia into this discussion? :DDD --Tone 19:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Piotrus, thank you for the fisrt clear question - it might be my lack of expereince in managing this stuff within wiki, but still. So Lets try to make this thing clear. Slovenian rules are slovenian rules (legal ones), based on them Slovenian institution working in the field of higher education can be called faculty (Fakulteta) without be part of university (some institutions use name school, some collage and some faculty - however, i belive it is clear i cannot call the institution school if statutory english title is faculty). Faculty has right that (according to slovenian legislation and decision of NAKVIS) provides education at bacherol, masters and doctoral level, as well as it has right to name people to the titles of professors of different ranking. Technically the institution in question curently provides possibility to finish the study at BA, MA and PHD equivalent level (i cannot say BA MA and PhD, since Slovenian legislation prohibits promotion of non slovenian titles, so i am only speaking in the sense of equivalents (measured via ECTS points and duration of study)in the field of Quality Management, which is field of management (recognised academic field of education and field of profession). Baased on our debate i see that there is missing knowledge on slovenian system of education which might be requested in order to reduce the confusion (i will check this in next 2 days and clarify this info - i have these issues explainign the slovenian education system also in real life so this way i will be able to solve some issues). I hope this answer helps to the clarification. If not help me developing with suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: clarification regarding status of the institution in querstion added by ministry RS (Which is Slovenia and not Slovakia in this case) + ECAHE - European authority in the field of accreditiation (basically repeting what is on the page of ministry - and saying that: Faculty is in the case of Slovenia one of 4 types of educational institutions (uni., faculty., art academy, and professional college). I understand that it might be confusing from the perspective of certain part of the world - but in fact this might be one of relevant bits of the understanding. (private/independendt - not part of uni and not financed by the state). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this institution meets the criteria. It is an independent organization that offers several graduate programs and not a part of a larger university (a peculiarity in the Slovenian system, as explained above). The article has quality issues, for sure. --Tone 10:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a degree-awarding institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It is now clear this passes our guidelines for encyclopedic institutions. I again suggest that there should be a note explaining what faculty means in Slovenian educational system. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Faculty" is a relatively common phrase for university (e.g., in French, à la fac) czar 06:51, 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 no consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metals Disintegrating Company[edit]

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

A company with 72 employees, per the one reference, which makes powdered metal. Not clear that it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the topic is documented in detail in other works such as Industrial Research Laboratories of the United States and The Story of New Jersey, it clearly satisfies WP:ORG. Andrew D. (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please provide links to the sources you claim provide such "clear" proof of notability.Edison (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Everett Joel Hall; Wikipedia does not need two articles on essentially the same topic. Some results do come up in Google Books but it's mostly of "company catalog" type or mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTPAPER, "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover". In other words, there is no need to reduce the page count to stay within some arbitrary limit. Hall died in 1931 but the company he founded continued. There's more of a case for merger into the later companies which the company has since become but that complex history has yet to be written and so this stub is a placeholder for that work. I started this series of pages as a spin off from aluminium powder. That's still a stub too and that's because most editors are too busy working on pop culture and politics to work on basic industrial history. Trying to eliminate such stubs before they can grow is disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If redirect target is not suitable, then delete, absent sources. I'm not seeing anything in Google books links, apart from catalog listings. For a long-standing company, something generally comes up. No sources, or extent of the coverage in them, have been presented at this AfD yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in sources meets the notability standard, a task made all the more challenging based on how far back the company was at its peak. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It was the only reference I found to explain the significance of a souvenir medal issued by the company celebrating a silver anniversary 1930-1955 of the first manufacture if aluminum paste. It had been presented to E.C Whittacker. The article provides a useful link. FS Jones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.181.175 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORPDEPTH, only mentions-in-passing can be found. The source in the article is a catalogue of all metal producers and therefore is insufficient as per WP:RS -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f eminist 16:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday editions[edit]

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

Stub without any referencing (and tagged since 2012) and what amounts to WP:OR. While Sunday newspapers may be somewhat notable, there's nothing here to establish notability for its own article. Suggest redirecting article to the current (and one letter different) Sunday Edition disambiguation page with a link to Newspaper -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep It's a stub which needs improvement per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't nominate it because it was a stub, I nominated because there is nothing that demonstrates why it is notable or anything verifiable, that couldn't be better covered in the newspaper article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator doesn't provide any reason to delete the page and actually suggests redirection – an action which is ordinary editing, rather than deletion. I am amending my !vote to Speedy Keep. Andrew D. (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I gave multiple reasons - WP:V and WP:N being the serious two. Redirection is a valid suggestion per WP:ATD-R and quite common in AfDs. -- Whats new?^(talk) 00:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. This is a perfectly valid article topic. Lepricavark (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Care to point to RS that establish notability as a "perfectly valid" topic in its own right? -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum Nomination advocates for a WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, whereas this forum is "Articles for deletion" discussion. See WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio (singer)[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline as is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The pistacubana refs are mostly chart listings, sufficient to reference that some of Claudio's songs entered the "top 100" or "Top 40" in particular weeks, but not otherwise providing any detailed coverage of the artist. The other sources for the article are primary(eg. Youtube, Facebook).

Also broadly fails WP:MUSICBIO - while some tracks have appeared on Cuban radio, there is:

No evidence of significant music sales;
No awards or international tours
No indication that he is part of an otherwise notable ensemble, or regarded as representative of a genre or musical innovation.

All views welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The YouTube references need checking to see if they are primary or secondary sources. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 07:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The two YouTube links are nothing more than Claudio's songs. Apart from supporting the existence of those two songs (in which case they count as primary sources), the videos do not give any information about Claudio himself and are thus useless as sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:15, 21 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) 06:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there are a few passing mentions in chart listings as Euryalus said, but the subject lacks significant biographical coverage as required by WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Music and Art of Radiohead[edit]

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

No sources in article, doesn't appear to be a notable work. There are lots of minor books written about Radiohead, this is no different.

Delete - Zero news coverage and no online reviews, at least none that I found. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 13 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 06:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this afd was started by Popcornduff, just saying, btw great username:) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK, it has been reviewed in ARSC Journal and Popular Music magazine, and WorldCat shows it is held in around 250 libraries, not bad for a "minor book written about Radiohead". Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It can definitely be expanded, but there are some reviews out there. It also looks to be referenced in this book, where some of the citations do mention it in detail. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I've just expanded the article from 2 extra sources I found quite easily. WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK and WP:BEFORE apply — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BOOKCRIT per reviews. E.g. [26], [27], [28]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Master "K"[edit]

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

Master K has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, no other criterion of WP:NPEOPLE is met, and the article is shamelessly promotional. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:43, 14 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 06:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG, no obvious or discoverable RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 12:16, 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 Speedy deleted G3 hoax and G11. Peridon (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phi H. Vo[edit]

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

Google search on "Phi H. Vo" or "Phi Vo" finds nothing about this teenager except possible social media hits. Notability is not inherited. Also see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references are just URLs to reliable sources, not to articles about this person. They were probably included to game BLPPROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:02, 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 02:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Rainbow Tour[edit]

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

PROD removed without explanation. This was PRODded (and deleted) before; one wonders where the dated cn-tag comes from that's on the article now. Anyway, see NTOUR--this thing is not notable. Nothing in-depth on the internetz, no hits in Google Books. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. what is with this influx of irrelevant tour articles being created? --Jennica✿ / ^talk 12:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable tour. Merge with the associated album. Longevitydude (talk) 01:09, 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 23:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Sear[edit]

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

Still no different than the 2013 AfD which itself shows something since Wikipedia and articles were different in 2013, and his career shows it's still not the significance needed in satisfying the standards, and there's naturally no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone in an article. SwisterTwister talk 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, again. Still not notable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON & perhaps salt for a few years? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:53, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic League[edit]

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

Non-notable promotional. Can not find Secondary reliable source. Mar11 (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. This article is lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I am not able to find any either. - tucoxn\^talk 23:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from this press release I am not finding coverage, including from Highbeam which covers Philippines media (and returns false positives for "D-League" due to a similarly named basketball competition). Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Apart from the press release that AllyD mentioned, the only coverage I could find for the organization came from school news media, which are not independent enough to establish notability for the organization. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 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 ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aux Field FC[edit]

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

A two-year old indoor soccer team in a non-noteable indoor league. Fails to meet WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Υπογράφω (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. This is apparently a youth club (or team) with no significant third-party coverage as shown by google and DuckDuckGo searches. The team's twitter page has only a few entries and nothing since March 2016, https://twitter.com/realauxfield. The article states that the club's big rival is Petting Zoo, FC. There is a picture from the Petting Zoo FC twitter page at the bottom of the Aux Field FC twitter page. Clearly, these are youth players. Neither club shows up in a perusal of youth leagues in the Bellevue area, which would suggest these clubs are recreational teams of some sort, not even shown to be participants in a sanctioned outdoor league. As such, the team/club would need to meet general notability requirements, which it doesn't. It doesn't even seem to have a web page, at least one that I could find in my searches. Other youth clubs in Bellevue at least have such pages. By contrast to the lack of coverage, or at least lack of presence on the web, of this team/club, a search for Rush FC or Rush Soccer, the largest youth soccer club in the world, gets hits from the first page. There is no Wikipedia article on the Rush club and I am not suggesting there should be one, but the contrast between a club or team with no coverage, not even its own web page, and a large club that has expanded to many cities and even foreign countries is obvious. For the record in case of any suggestion that this could be a prominent pro or semi-pro team, one can view the lists of teams in the fully professional leagues (Major League Soccer, North American Soccer League or United Soccer League} and the top semi-pro/amateur leagues (Premier Development League, American Soccer League (2014)) in the United States and will find that this club is not listed, as one would expect. At most, this article appears to be a vanity or promotional page for a youth recreational team which is not notable by any criterion. It should be deleted. Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:59, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EasyCHAID[edit]

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

Was deprodded by the article's creator without rationale. But prodding reason still holds true: Wholly unreferenced article about an app with no indication of notability, although it does exist. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT Doing a little digging, website has the name Rafael R. Troiani listed as the author, author of the article is Rafael Rodrigues Troiani. The website links back to the wikipedia page, seemingly to give the product credibility. Delete per WP:ADMASK. Salt to prevent re-creating of advertisement. Fbifriday (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Aside from the possible COI issue discussed above, my searches are finding nothing to indicate possible notability for this site. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte, no indication of any notability, not to mention the COI stuff. ♠PMC♠ (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. MER-C 09:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Carmody (Digital Marketer)[edit]

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

article about a non-notable subject. DavidWestT (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is a coat rack for promoting his company. The company may be notable (I have my doubts) but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons mentioned above. To add, the creator of the page has been blocked indefinitely for advertising and sockpuppeting. TouhouFan9801 (talk) 05:55, 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 Protests against Donald Trump. The headcount provides an almost even three-way split of delete, merge and keep opinions. As to the arguments, the "delete" and "merge" side points out the significant overlap with articles such as Protests against Donald Trump, 2017 Women's March, Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests and List of 2017 Women's March locations. In the light of Wikipedia policy and practice, notably WP:CFORK, which instructs us to avoid creating content forks (that is, covering the same topic in different articles), I find these arguments to be stronger than those advanced by the "keep" side, which mostly amount to "it's useful", "it's notable" or "it's important", which may well be true but do not address the content-forking arguments. Taking this into consideration, I do not find consensus for outright deletion, but rather consensus to find an editorial solution by redirecting and (selectively) merging (as editors may deem appropriate) to avoid content duplication except as required by summary style. Given the strong policy-based arguments not to maintain the current list in main space, I am not merely slapping a "merge" tag on the list but redirecting it to the most frequently mentioned target, Protests against Donald Trump. Any merger that editors may agree on can occur from the article's history, and the redirect target can also be changed as deemed appropriate. Sandstein 08:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Donald Trump protests[edit]

Article was renamed to Donald Trump inauguration protests.

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

Useless listcruft, no point in keeping this, if there are any notable protests, the content should be merged into one of the already many articles. - CHAMPION ^{(talk(contributions) (logs)} 00:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Delete - Nothing memorable or encyclopedic, unless one wishes to record the two police hospitalized and the other four injured policemen. XavierItzm (talk) 00:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: You have misplaced the comment, I have just corrected this. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Planned demonstrations and boycotts take your pick. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list, but I agree it needs significant cleanup and sourcing improvement. MB298 (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Weak keep - Definitely needs cleanup and improvement, but the main Protests against Donald Trump article has grown unmanageably long, despite a talk page consensus to shorten it. Funcrunch (talk) 03:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just glanced at Protests against Donald Trump and it's actually not really that large, unless we're catering to the typical non-existent attention span. Compare it to Political positions of Hillary Clinton, well over twice the size of that article, where concerns about shortening it have consistently fallen on deaf ears. In general, putting this much emphasis on "whatever's in the news today = what's notable about the world" at the expense of the big picture of human knowledge only validates my ongoing WP:NOTNEWS concerns. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone wishes to rewrite it as a prose article. It won't be me, as the amount of coverage we've already given to a Trump presidency which only started today is absolutely ridiculous when compared to the countless notable events that we don't acknowledge whatsoever or only provide trivial coverage and for which an abundance of sources have long existed. Read: what finer points of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" are y'all disputing by engaging in all this activity? In addition to WP:NOTNEWS, the content I'm looking at right now also violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE and/or WP:TOOSOON. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely keep and of course it needs cleaning up, which I am happy to do. It is a work in progress and needs cleanup and improvement to conform with Wikipedia policies. The US and global protests to Trump's inauguration are of great historical significance. With hundreds and perhaps thousands of separate protests taking place in connection with his inauguration, which is unprecedented in American presidential history, it doesn't make sense to merge this into an existing article. A list is the most compact and efficient way to record these events and particularly significant protests can then have their own separate pages if necessary. Obtaining an accurate number of the total people attending and participating is extremely valuable and this is the place that can be done for posterity and encyclopedic purposes. For those arguing it should be deleted, please point to the applicable provision in Wikipedia's Deletion Policy that is applicable, other than general references to being non-encyclopedic ("encyclopedic" defined as "comprehensive in terms of information.") I sense other motivations for deletion from some. ClimateAction 03:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. That article started out as a promotional vehicle for "Hamilton Electors", a slick but shadowy social media campaign masquerading as some sort of political organization. The strong consensus in favor of keeping the article resulted in refactoring it into covering the broader topic, based on a rationale that it was some sort of profound event. Just to give one example, we're a long, long way off from determining if the 2016 Electoral College vote will have the enduring impact of 1972, when Roger MacBride single-handedly jump-started the Libertarian Party by casting his vote for John Hospers instead of Richard Nixon. Of course, it's probably a waste of time to point that out since the mentality of the moment is that the LP owes its entire existence to Gary Johnson, plus in general I'm tired of repeatedly pointing out that this community may lack a clue about "enduring impact" versus the constant array of fleeting "trending topics". Unless this article is similarly refactored or merged, it reads more like advertising for these marches and protests than anything else. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Or at best merge with the page about the inauguration. This is just a list of protests, isn't encyclopedic, and could easily just be added to the main page for the event...like it already is. Fbifriday (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It needs some improvement, but it makes sense having a separate article on this topic, seeing how it has become a global event with protests in London, Sydney, Berlin, and tons of other places, in addition to protests across the US. There is already a well developed and lengthy article on Protests against Donald Trump, which is only likely to get longer in the days, weeks, months and years to come if he does any of the things he has said he will do, and considering how reviled he already is around the world and in his own country, so I don't think we should merge the articles at this point. --Tataral (talk) 06:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Inaguration of Donald Trump or Protests Against Donald Trump or both. Thats where this information belongs, not its own article.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There appears to be a duplicate article that could be merged into this one: United States Presidential Inauguration protests, 2017. ^Falling_Gravity 08:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I merged that one to Protests against Donald Trump, as it consisted of just two paragraphs, overlapping with a section of the main article. — JFG ^talk 11:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:10YT — JFG ^talk 11:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more over the top coverage of all things anti-Trump. Purely run of the mill protests that actually fell far short of expectations. None of these protests individually or collectively merit their own article. Huge problems with WP:RECENTISM, NOTNEWS and DUE. This looks like a WP:CONTENTFORK from Protests against Donald Trump and is arguably a good candidate for CSD per A-10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"far short"? Have you been listening to "alternate facts" (or have I). Here is what I found with one Google news search: Newsweek stated, "It also was a much bigger rally than expected..." NorthJersey.com had an article entitled, "Local women's marches draw far larger crowds than expected". Chicago Sun-Times headlines, "Chicago Women's March crowd bigger than expected" Los Angeles Times, [29] "In Houston, police estimated the crowd for the women's march had swelled to 20,000 people, much larger than expected." Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Planned demonstrations and boycotts, whichever is better. It is unprecedented for there to be such an international reaction to the inauguration of a US President (I don't recall this amount of reaction when Bush became President in 2001), so perhaps there's an argument to create something like Aftermath of the United States Presidential election, 2016, an article with a much wider scope that could include a section about this topic, in a similar way that there's an article for Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016, which also sparked protests (albeit on a smaller scale). This is Paul (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would agree with this article being merged or built up into an article about the Inauguration protests instead of a list of protests. That would make it much more appropriate.--ZiaLater (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the umbrella article of all the protests that happen during and around his inauguration and as an article about his inauguration. It's historically important (the crowd was not at his inauguration like Obama but at his protests/marches), there's tons of sources, there's even TV channel that dedicates their entire day programming to this. --Deansfa (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ad Orientem. We are not a newspaper. Lepricavark (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we're a bloody newspaper. Try finding an aircraft accident with deaths involved (or sometimes without) that doesn't have an article. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. It might be that the protests have long lasting political significance that resonates for a lengthy period of time, but we can't say that yet. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't like the name. It makes it sound like the article is about an inauguration of protests, not the inauguration of Trump. I saw List of Trump Inauguration Protests which redirects to this article. That would be better, except the word "protests" should not be capitalized.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. The subject is notable, but if you strip out Women's March on Washington which is worthy of a stand-alone article, then I'm dubious as to whether there's much stand-alone content that can not justifiably be merged into the main article. StillWaitingForConnection (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per other editr's rational who voted merge, especially Ritchie333's great comment. Too soon to tell the consequences of this, but at the moment is non-notable and in fact seems to violate WP:LISTCRUFT. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and maybe Merge content) (but see self-reply) to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or nearby in the same article (also noting that there is a summary at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests for inauguration-specific protests). Unless there are protests that WP:RS describe as attempting to disqualify Trump from actually being sworn in, or that WP:RS establish as an effective boycott or disruption of the inauguration, there's no real distinction between protests before, on the day, or after January 20. The boycott by public officials is already covered at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Representatives boycotting and any others that happen to involve the actual inauguration can be covered at Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests. Other demonstrations are just surrounding the inauguration because it's a milestone day with a lot of attention, not because the participants really thought America should cancel a January 20 swearing-in; these surrounding demonstrations can be covered in chronological or other order in Protests against Donald Trump. --Closeapple (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Self-reply: After seeing User:ClimateAction's proposal below, I would in the future say Keep a separate article for January 19–21 if, excluding the 2017 Women's March and others that have their own articles and the Congressional boycott that is already in Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests, there was substantial independent coverage (WP:GNG) of the other protests beyond local news media mentions and name/organizer/date/head count. But right now it's just a table of events, which can go into Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests or Inauguration of Donald Trump#Protests. (And at that, most of those entries are for the 2017 Women's March and should be moved there instead.) --Closeapple (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I'd Merge to Protests against Donald Trump or a similar target apart from Women's March on Washington which is obviously notable. Having said that I'd Wait on this one for the time being; there's clearly more solid news here than thousands of our existing articles. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. It could be a sign of a goaded opposition by some foreign power or economic interest, but we can't see that now, although it has already many marks as propaganda. I don't remember (am I wrong ?) that it had happened before that a President was asked to resign before beginning his term, so it is notable. --Robertiki (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a global event of sizable proportions. --Buffaboy ^talk 01:10, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vote for keep. Ethanbas (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, no supporting rationale? WP:JUSTAVOTE? The closing administrator should disregard comments like this. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Protests against Donald Trump. This is a highly notable event, possibly one of the largest mass protests in United States and world history. Anyone want to research where this fits into large historical protests? Victor Grigas (talk) 01:45, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffaboy and Victorgrigas: What is "it's"/"this" in the first sentence? There is more than one event. Is this being confused with the Women's March on Washington and its sister events, which already have their own article? --Closeapple (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with you, I confused this with the Women's Marches. –Buffaboy ^talk 04:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AH! yes you are correct - please strike and remove my comment above, I was in error and confused and meant to comment on the Women's March on Washington. Victor Grigas (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump#Inauguration protests with a summary at Inauguration of Donald Trump. This is not stand-alone an encyclopedic article. In response to the concern about the Protests article already being too large, it should be noted that there is consensus for it to be trimmed.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A widely reported massive protest directly against an incoming US president is definitely notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shiftchange: Are you, again, confusing this article with the Women's March on Washington, per the couple of comments above, while that specific protest is notable, many of the ones in the article that is the subject of discussion is not. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Women's March was a part of a bigger worldwide protest that this article should cover. Is my understanding that there were other groups, not just related to women, who also organised protests in response to the inauguration incorrect? - Shiftchange (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We had a lengthy discussion trying to first abolish then trim Protests against Donald Trump. See here. Let me preface this by stating the RfC was not closed properly as it was one by an impatient involved editor, who then used his own decision to pare off a lot of existing content. I had added a lot of content on the post election wave protests, sourcing it all. The same complaints were mentioned then. I said there would be more, that it was the beginning of a trend. That is now proven out by the mass number of protests in the last two days, probably the peak in the protests, but who knows for sure. I said then and will repeat, we are scheduled for at least four more years of this. It will all be recent or news when it occurs, but I have contended that as a cumulative trend. Getting the reports when they are fresh is a lot easier than looking back and rebuilding the puzzle. The look back is also relevant because we can add in the longer term significance as it becomes known, but keeping the original data gives us access to the sources (assuming the media publishing them keep them alive or it is captured by the wayback machine). That's my background for the newbies in the discussion.

So we come to today. We have possibly the largest protest ever held in Washington D.C. followed by possibly the largest mass protest across cities in the U.S. and around the world. Even if they don't attain the number one rank of these superlatives, they are close. There is no way these events cannot become historical. Absolutely this is worthy of wikipedia coverage. And these events deserve their own articles. I think the post election protests as a group deserve their own article, which can certainly be expanded upon. I have started such a project in my sandbox, but I just don't have the time to write all the content those potential articles deserve . . . but I know for a fact that it is there. Several protests since November and several today would have sufficient content to merit their own articles. There is THAT much activity. We have an example of how this is done from the Occupy movement series of articles. Not as well done, we had the Tea Party protests, but even their Taxpayer March on Washington has and deserves its own article. Had wikipeda existed, the Protests against the Vietnam War would be much better detailed. Look at how the various Civil rights movements articles are broken down. These historical protests give us a roadmap of what can and should be done with this series of protests. We need the big single article and lots of sidebars, timelines, prose . . . What we don't need are artificial and probably partisan restrictions on what wikipedia can do to document this history in the making before our eyes. Trackinfo (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Are you saying that there needs to be not only a Protests against Donald Trump article, but this Inauguration of Donald Trump protests (presumably under a different name since it's awkward) as a subtopic that's wider than just January 20, and then a 2017 Women's March article (which already exists) that's a subtopic of that, and then a article for each big Women's March that's a subtopic? --Closeapple (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No individual editor gets to decide what Wikipedia "must have". Rules and policies about notability, sourcing, due weight and recentism have been enacted following years of collective wisdom. If you find reliable sources commenting on those protests as a whole and not just advertising them, feel free to reference them here. Otherwise, there is nothing to keep. — JFG ^talk 13:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Trackinfo: Unfortunately you faced near-unanimous opposition in the RfC about excessive detail in the Protests against Donald Trump article; this is not a cabal against you or a reflection of partisanship, it's just normal editorial process in building an encyclopedia. If you believe the RfC close was inappropriate, you have a venue to oppose it at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. — JFG ^talk 13:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millions of protesters have taken to the streets of cities in the US and around the globe to rally against the new US President Donald Trump. Larger numbers of demonstrators than expected turned out for more than 600 rallies worldwide. I didn't make that up, that's a direct quote from the BBC, presumably unblemished by the partisan divide of the U.S. So you think this is insignificant? This is bigger than the Occupy movement and look at all the coverage we did on that. What I am saying is there is a lot of content to develop on this new series of protests. As I added to the Protests against Donald Trump, there are lots of sources. 600 different rallies are likely to each have several media covering them. I state this with the experience of pulling hundreds of reliable sources for the earlier protests, I know they have to be there. Sourcing each and every one of the 600, plus writing prose takes far more work. The absence of execution of this overwhelming task does not reduce the significance, it reinforces it. Has the U.S. ever seen this much protest? Have any of the presumed smaller protest movements ever had any long term significance, such as the ones I cited above? I am not stating what that significance is, we don't know. None of us do. That happens over time. Citing recentism and news are just ways to try to ignore the history happening before our eyes. Trackinfo (talk) 06:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I say that this movement was insignificant. I'm just saying it doesn't need 5 different articles and endless details on each individual gathering of protesters. The two articles Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March are enough. — JFG ^talk 14:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article needs some improvement and cleanup, I think this makes sense. — Harut ^talk 19:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the original creator of this article, I think I am okay if it is deleted. It now looks like the Women's March, which really dominated the inauguration-related protests, is building out a thorough article with a great LIST/TABLE (apparently these are ok after all!) that has estimated attendance numbers. The Protests against Donald Trump article now has okay summaries of Inauguration Protests and the Women's March, but the Inauguration Protests paragraph is currently focused too much on disruptJ20 and has no mention of the thousands of other Americans who participated in peaceful protests, rallies, marches, walkouts etc on 20 Jan (unprecedented!). I agree with comments that significant protests are likely to continue throughout Trump's presidency and that they are absolutely of great historical significance and must be covered and preserved. Only having a single article on the topic (i.e. Protests against Donald Trump article) is grossly inadequate. If people want to pretend that these worldwide protests are insignificant or that Trump is not historically unpopular for an incoming president, I think that is SAD. Perhaps a structure like the following should be adopted - (1) article on protests that occurred before the election/during the primaries (e.g. "Protests Against the Candidacy of Donald Trump"), (2) article on protests that occurred on election night/pre-inauguration/in connection with inauguration with some clever name, (3) then going forward a year-by-year article - e.g. "2017 Protests Against the Presidency of Donald Trump (Post-Inauguration)", "2018 Protests Against the Presidency of Donald Trump", as so on (assuming protests continue), and (4) any especially significant protests (e.g. similar to the Women's March) that occur going forward can have their own article. Thank you. ClimateAction talk 16:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that at least all of the sister march entries on this list should be removed, as they are duplicated and better suited on the 2017 Women's March page. Funcrunch (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — It's a shitty article now, but that just means we need to fix it, not delete it. There is definitely enough material to cover this and merit an own article. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge appropriate content to 2017 Women's March and Protests against Donald Trump. I believe user ClimateAction has the appropriate approach for the general subject of protests against Donald Trump. --Enos733 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where/if appropriate to Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March, then Redirect to Protests against Donald Trump. While the main article is cumbersome (even after a lot of the content was purged), if there's to be a split, it should happen after a thorough discussion with the many editors on that page, to determine if this is a sensible place to make that split (and whether a split should happen at all). Merge now and no prejudice against recreation if there's consensus for a split later. I see no reason to delete, however. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump and 2017 Women's March. The Inauguration protests seem to be part of the larger stories told in those main articles and I don't think a split is necessary at this point.LM2000 (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2017 Women's March. The 2017 Women's March is one of these Trump-related protests, and most of the inaugural protests are part of the Women's March against President Trump. Deleting just erases the revision history and is unnecessary in this case. epicgenius (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, if this article is kept, the closing admin should note that the protests would have happened anyway regardless of who was elected. epicgenius (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, Trump would have stirred up trouble if Hillary had been elected? This kind of protest I don't think has happened since Nixon. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable events that have garnered much attention from many news outlets. Longevitydude (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or keep Many lines are not cited, but the topic provides a valuable viewpoint not available elsewhere, and there is a lot to cover. Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or at the very least, merge/redirect) — this topic is or can be subsumed entirely in already existing articles protests against Donald Trump and inauguration of Donald Trump. No editor has come forward with any explanation of why the protests were independently notable other than through those events. Neutrality^talk 23:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is like nothing that has ever happened before. This article indicates that 100,000 showed up in 1973, and 20,000 came in 2001. Just the rally at the Trump Tower in New York (25,000) was larger than anything previous but the 1973 Nixon-inauguration protest crowd. Unscintillating (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unscintillating - the NYC rally was part of the 2017 Women's Marches, which have their own article. Neutrality^talk 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Neutrality: No, the rally I cited took place on January 19. "25,000 Hit The Streets In Massive NYC Anti-Trump Rally Hours Before Inauguration Day" is the citation from Huffington Post. The lede of List of 2017 Women's March locations states, "The 2017 Women's Marches were a series of political rallies that took place in cities around the world since January 21, 2017." The NYC Anti-Trump rally or what I called the rally at the Trump Tower was a "massive" rally of 25,000 that exceeded any but the largest previous inauguration day protest. The Women's Day march in New York City attracted 400,000 two days later. Unscintillating (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I agree that the 2017 Women's March deserves its own article and merging this one there simply muddies the water for both. They are two separate things. This article encompasses much more than just the women's events and simply needs to be expanded to cover all the related areas. But there is no question that this article's events are notable and frankly, given the context, historic. So article easily passes WP:N(E) generally; and more specifically: WP:COVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, WP:LASTING and WP:EVENTCRIT. X4n6 (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update – Essentially the same list has been created at List of 2017 Women's March locations (as a fork from 2017 Women's March), one more reason to delete this one… — JFG ^talk 08:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. The lead makes very clear that this article is primarily about the March on Washington and the sister marches, which are all already covered by 2017 Women's March. If there are some other smaller protests covered by this article that are unrelated to the Women's march, they can go into Protests against Donald Trump and/or Inauguration_of_Donald_Trump#Protests_and_demonstrations.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I can, in theory, imagine an article on this topic, this mishmash of random information with a poorly sourced list fails to meet even the most minimal standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, this article is titled Donald Trump inauguration protests yet most of the article content is a long list of protests that occurred on January 21 (ie, not on Inauguration Day), which is already covered in the List of 2017 Women's March locations article. Second, the small amount of remaining content is a repetition of content that can be found in a number of other articles, such as Protests against Donald Trump, 2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots, Timeline of protests during Donald Trump's presidency and 2017 Women's March. Gfcvoice (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the information belong to the Women's March on Washington. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The protests are clearly notable, and merging it wit the Women's March just complicates things since not all the protests were associated with that. Plus we need to keep articles at reasonable lengths. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 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 speedy keep. Clear evidence from a reliable source that the player has made multiple appearances in a fully professional league and so passes the subject-specific guideline. No need to keep this open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Syazwan Andik[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as he has no appearances in a fully professional league, and no international caps. Also, the NFT profile on the page is another player's. None of the references are reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:51, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to Soccerway, he has 12 appearances in the S. League, which means this article meets WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Nfitz (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Soccerway profile provided above supports the player making appearances in a fully professional league to pass WP:NFOOTBALL. Kosack (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sir Sputnik Spiderone 14:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in a professional league, thus passing WP:NFOOTY. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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