Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 January	27 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enduro.js[edit]

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

I PRODed this in August but one user, who I presume is from the company perhaps, contested saying "Downloaded 10,000 times a month", but searches once again found nothing of genuine substance and Wikipedia is not a software listing as our policy WP:NOT states, so there's no automatic inheritance for an article. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, noticed this at WP:REFUND, and tried to search for WP:RS that mentioned this open source project. Unfortunately, there are a lot of race-dirtbike-related websites that use javascript, so (enduro AND javascript) types of searches produce 7m false-positive hits. Searching with the creator's name produces seven hits, by contrast, but for an open source project typically the creator's name is not always mentioned in "product" reviews. So what I will say, for anybody that knows something about Enduro.js and the creators/developers, please listen, what wikipedia requires is simple. To help stop the Enduro.js article from being deleted, please provide a list of URLs, pointing to detailed in-depth factual articles specifically talking about Enduro.js for multiple paragraphs, which are published in well-known newspapers / book-publishers / scientific journals / deadtree technology magazines / television newscasts. Which means not the endurojs.com website, not slant.co in Colombia, not facebook, not youtube, not blogs, not wordpress, not github, not alexa, not download counts, not client testimonials, not logical arguments from first principles. The only thing that matters is *coverage* in respected fact-checking reliable publications, which means newspapers/books/academia/magazines/newsmedia, and it has to be *detailed* coverage specifically *about* Enduro.js and/or the creator, as much as possible. See WP:GOLDENRULE for what I'm talking about here, that is the only thing that will help. If the project is too new to have received such coverage in the media and academia, then it is WP:TOOSOON for the wikipedia article on Enduro.js to be written, and it can be moved to Draft:Enduro.js until such coverage (detailed in-depth by well-known highly-respected reliable publishers) has been achieved. Hope this clarifies 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NSOFTWARE, WP:GNG and WP:NOT applies. Article initially deleted 16 August 2016 per Expired PROD, "concern was: Nothing at all actually suggestive of substance for its convincing notability, searches noticeably found nothing." Article was "Restored" five months later on 26 January 2017. Article has the same problems as before. Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Article lacks independent reliable sources. Number of downloads is not a criteria for notability. Strong COI issue- article creator appears to be the developer of product. See: "Gottwik/GottwikWiki". CBS527^Talk 02:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete absence of reliable sources, appears to be promotional in nature. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:08, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Azerbaijan[edit]

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

Unreliable article. The only source does not back up the information it is supposed to back up. And a ghost town (Agdam) as city??? The Banner talk 23:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: yes the sourcing should be improved. But that's an argument for development not deletion. -- Taku (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and update/copy edit. A valid and functional list article per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP, with content that is easily verified. I have added a {{refimprove}} template atop the article and have added some sources to better verify content. Also, I removed the Agdam ghost town entry, which took about two seconds to accomplish. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Also good work by North America in cleaning up the article. --NSH001 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- comment: Article should probably be moved to a different title once this AfD has concluded, because "cities" has a different meaning in British and American English. Suggest either "List of settlements in Azerbaijan" or "List of towns and cities in Azerbaijan". --NSH001 (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above, and no valid deletion reason given for a plainly valid article topic. Antepenultimate (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. We have a truly enormous category system for cities within fooian jurisdiction. And we have categories for many lists of such cities. This is such a list. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Frankly, I don't like dumb lists, but this one seems OK. With good editing, it should improve with time. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legit article which can be improved. No valid reason for delete. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources improved.--Jklamo (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taiyou Con[edit]

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

Lack of reliable sources aside from several Phoenix New Time articles. Rest are fansites, voice actors personal websites, or blogs. Esw01407 (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While I could find several sources, most are local in nature, and the rest are promotional material or sites of questional reliability. No prejudice against recreation if future iterations receive more coverage. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak develop, maybe This con seems to get regular coverage by Phoenix New Times, which is good, but not nationally, other than that it gets mentioned by ANN that it is happening. It doesn't appear that ANN is sending any reporters there to summarize events. It's only after having to dig around that it has recently (like 2016 and 2017) attracted some of the big seiyuus from Japan such as Yuu Asakawa, Kappei Yamaguchi, Yuko Sanpei and Akemi Kanda; attendance is about 1500 increasing to 3200. However, I wouldn't keep this if most of the anime industry doesn't really care about using this convention for promoting anything. I only see one person from Viz Media who regularly attends, and have no idea who the other sponsors are. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 07:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing coverage isn't enough for notability here. If someone wants to Userfy the page, I would not be opposed to that per WP:REFUND. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:19, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hanks[edit]

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

The company Harte Hanks may be notable, but the founder (Bernard Hanks) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has significant coverage in reliable sources:

Logue Post, Sally Ann (1984). With or Without Offense: Bernard Hanks and the Abilene Reporter-News (PDF). Texas Tech University.
"From Newsboy to Publisher, Hanks Built Reporter-News". Abilene Reporter-News. April 8, 1956.
"Texas newspaper hall inducts Houston Harte, Bernard Hanks". Retrieved 2017-01-27.
Duff, Katharyn (1969-01-01). Abilene on Catclaw Creek: a profile of a West Texas town. Reporter Pub. Co. pp. 122–.
"M.B. Hanks Dies; Texas Publisher, Broadcaster". Editor and Publisher. Editor & Publisher Company. 2017-01-27. p. 64.

Υπογράφω (talk) 04:49, 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 merge to Roller Hockey International. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference (RHI)[edit]

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

Almost all pages linked to from here have been deleted via WP:AFD. Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT.Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user seeking to promote the sport. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with an optional limited merge of anything that can be properly referenced to the main RHI article. This subject can be mentioned but it does not justify an article of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Roller Hockey International Our nominator seems to be back on the warpath, looking to destroy encyclopedic material and failing to consider the obligations imposed by WP:BEFORE. A merge is a blindingly obvious solution to address whatever shred of legitimate concerns have been raised here. Alansohn (talk) 01:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Roller Hockey International: Per User:Alansohn, logic is sound. GauchoDude (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per the above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect as per previous comments. DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. Lepricavark (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roller Hockey International. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Conference (RHI)[edit]

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

Almost all pages linked to from here have been deleted via WP:AFD. Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT.Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user seeking to promote the sport. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons as given here. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / Redirect to Roller Hockey International Our nominator seems to be back on the warpath, looking to destroy encyclopedic material and failing to consider the obligations imposed by WP:BEFORE. A merge is a blindingly obvious solution to address whatever shred of legitimate concerns have been raised here. Alansohn (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced material is very questionably encyclopaedic. Of course, if it can be reliably referenced, and it is just that the original author didn't bother, then we can merge as much as is relevant and which the sources support but if what the sources support is next to nothing then we don't want to just move unreferenced, unencyclopaedic cruft from one article to another. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Roller Hockey International: Per User:Alansohn, logic is sound. GauchoDude (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per above. Lepricavark (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CARiD[edit]

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

@Denholm78: Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and what existed is hardly significant at all since it's only a business listing, WP:NOT applies as always. SwisterTwister talk 23:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. In the previous nomination the consensus was to delete and this article may be to be similar to the deleted article (has no reliable sources and is advertising ) and should be speedy deleted under CSD:G4 -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A question of notability and weather there is a place for this subject on Wikipedia may not have a lot of sense in this particular situation, as this article existed on Wikipedia and was linked-to for at least a year, until the moment when it was filled with promotional content, which basically triggered the first deletion nomination. In my submission I was looking to make it even more neutral than it was originally when it was approved by editors. I tried to avoid mentioning notable facts in the social and financial sphere of the subject and only referred to bare numbers and key points, in order not to make it sound as any sort of advertisement, as there is a fine line in determining whether such facts are used in promotional context or function as illustration of notability in the category of business subjects like this. Basically most references of articles about business, enterprises or corporations on Wikipedia may be interpreted as a result of their promotion campaigns even when they're subtle and claim to be notable. While I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a platform for promotions and business listing and not trying to question it in any way, one other fact that influenced my decision to give a try on recreating this article is that CARiD page used to be mentioned and linked-to by other notable articles within the automotive category of Wikipedia itself, such as Automotive aftermarket; plus there is also an appropriate category that directly corresponds with the subject Category:Automotive part retailers of the United States, which serves as interlinking of these pages and potentially improves the Wikipedia knowledge base.Denholm78 (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references added. Denholm78 (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Denholm78: The new reference seems to only trivially mention the subject making it not meet the WP:GNG guideline. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 00:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current version has even fewer references than that deleted after the previous AfD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Light2021 (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ST's comment. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Primary authors are SPA's. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Withdrawing nom, I'm obviously in the minority here, so this unsourced soup of names is going to stay. Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts[edit]

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

WP is not the place to post a membership directory. Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN and WP:NOTDUP. If it's important enough to categorize people by Category:Members of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, then a list is appropriate too. Moreover, broken up and browseable the way the list is, by discipline, it's a perfect example of the advantages of such a list, over a category. I'm a little surprised by the nomination, coming from an administrator, as WP:CLN is rather basic policy. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have many such lists of members of learned societies. I attended an editathon on Monday which was focussed on a similar set of academics -- women classicists. Such lists are quite helpful for such activity -- helping us identify missing topics. Andrew D. (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep especially in view of discussions like the one at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 16#Category:Fellows of the German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina (which I disagree with, but discovered too late to contribute) according to which a list may be a better way than a category to keep this sort of information. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lists, categories, and templates all serve different purposes, which is why we can have all three of them on a similar topic. However, exactly because they serve different goals, they also look different. A category is a bare list of wikilinked articles. A template helps in navigation. A list however, should be different. Yes, we have many lists of members of learned societies. Just click on a random one in that category and compare it to this list. Those lists give some more information than a bare list of names, which is at it should be for lists. The list under discussion here is a bare list of names, most not even wikilinked. As WP:NOTDUP (like WP:CLN a guideline, BTW, not policy) states: "lists may include features not available to categories". This is not that. I also note that the vast majority entries in this list are not sourced to anything. In short, I argue that WP:TNT applies here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm also quite baffled by this nomination. The topic meets WP:LISTN and WP:CLN. If it's missing extra context and referencing, the obvious solution would seem to be to add that information, rather than delete the article. WP:TNTTNT applies... – Joe (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – One thing that even a bare list like this can do, and categories can't, is to provide a full list of members. Such a list is useful in providing incentive to create articles and to help establishing notability, similar to lists in Category:Wikipedia missing topics. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:12, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clint P. Johnson[edit]

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

Mayor could be notable but the page is a major WP:COATRACK or WP:1EVENT. Meatsgains (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet notability standards. Article creator is also creating pages for other non-notable local politicians. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 05:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small town mayor does not meet notability standards. There is some local newspaper coverage but nothing broader.Glendoremus (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeBary is not a large or prominent enough city to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the sourcing here, which consists of his own LinkedIn profile and a few pieces of purely WP:ROUTINE local coverage of the type that all mayors always get in their local media, is not good enough to make him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:SNOW; fails both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SIGCOV. No sources outside local news, his LinkedIn page, and the (small) city website. Run of the mill local politician, one of thousands in Florida alone. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as an elected local official with no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" AusLondonder (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails NPOL and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails. Johnson does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Insufficient notability for inclusion. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 03:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Metric Arts[edit]

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

Claims of notability are unsourced (+ I am unable to find anything that would back them up) and article serves as little more than a business listing. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertised campaigning considering it's been deleted before, and this is still nothing but advertising again, so WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article originating from February 2013, in which month a similarly-named article was deleted from the Spanish Wikipedia as promotional. My searches are finding nothing to indicate more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxon America[edit]

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

The article claims a lot of things why one should think this company to be notable but I cannot find any reliable sources discussing the subject. Fails WP:CORP. So Why 20:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- apart from a few directory listings, no RS can be found. An unremarkable private company going about its business; WP:TOOSOON applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and WP:NOT is the solution. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 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. czar 01:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Entwistle[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability requirements, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO. No applicable coverage. The author added a couple of sources and removed a PROD tag, but one is a link to IMDb and the other is to his company's website, neither of which helps to demonstrate notability. Largoplazo (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nearly nothing on news or WP:VGRS searches. TimothyJosephWood 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOT applies given this is simply an IMDb-esque listing, there's no independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He doesn't seem to be a really a important or major figure at Rockstar North or that notable. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all. IMDB is not a reliable source. My searches online didn't yield anything to establish notability either. Gachangi (talk) 05:38, 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. Sandstein 18:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evil corporation[edit]

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

An AFD on this article closed last week as: "Move to Evil corporations in fiction". An editor previously active on the page then pared it down, and returned it to this title. As far as I can see, the idea that the "evil corporation" is used in fiction, particularly in film and comic books, can be supported, the article and title now present "evil corporation" as an actual type. Sources fail to support this, and phrase fails to meet WP:NEO when used in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory‎ (talk • contribs) 14:12, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

Keep as a notable topic as evidenced by the sources. The claim "Sources fail to support this" is false. The term is a trope, as the sources state, and it has been used in regard to fictional and real-life corporations. This does not mean it would be appropriate to have a "list of evil corporations" for real-world corporations, but background is given to the term, and uses of the term are shown. Editor E.M.Gregory has recently engaged in rapid passerby tagging, such as at hipster sexism, claiming lack of notability despite no real time devoted to researching each topic. This particular follow-up on my own contributions to this article is similarly knee-jerk. This is a poor nomination, putting forth that "evil corporation" should be deleted in its entirety from Wikipedia, rather than proposing a renaming or a merging. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider proposing a merge, but in light of the fact that Erik reverted the title against the consensus at AFD, I thought that this would be more appropriate.

This was the nominator's response to me, for a comment that I had tried to speedily remove rather than strike through. Basically, I misunderstood the issue and was hasty. My bad. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake: Erik, if you're unhappy about this Afd, then you might consider your actions in unilaterally reversing the ~~merge~~ move that was the consensus decision at the last Afd. I'm alerting @Xymmax:. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's this merge we're talking about? I only see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evil corporation. (And why does it seem like the rest of us are only seeing half the conversation here and at Talk:Evil corporation, with replies to things the rest of us can't see?) --Closeapple (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think Shawn misspoke. How do you think the topic should be covered on Wikipedia? You expressed concern about the term being applied to real-life corporations. As I said above, I would oppose a so-called "list of evil corporations", but I mentioned where the label had been applied. For example, the Monsanto inclusion is based on The New Yorker, and it specifically states who thinks that way, rather than saying something inappropriate like, "Monsanto is considered an evil corporation." Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn in Montreal, the AfD closed with the consensus to keep. Renaming was considered acceptable on top of that. I actually created a thread on the talk page explaining my changes (expanding the scope beyond just "in fiction") and pinged all editors involved with that AfD. Fixuture thanked me for this, so I assume at least that editor was fine with the change. The other editors have not said anything about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, meant to say move. Afd closure was clearly to keep and move. You undid the move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, both because I expanded the scope of the article, and even if I did not, the renaming violated conciseness under WP:CRITERIA. Assuming that there was only coverage about the fictional aspect, it should stay named "evil corporation" and be clear in the article body that it is about the fictional aspect. Adding "in fiction" was an unnecessary matter of distinguishing because there is nothing to distinguish it from, as opposed to something like "2017" vs. "2017 in film". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see. And I did indeed misspeak. Sorry again for the confusion. I am quite literally on painkillers today, and I think I'm a little foggy! I certainly am of the general opinion that the concept "evil corporation" need not be just a fictional element. As for the relationship between the last Afd and suggestions of 'possible wikihounding' -- made on the article talk page -- I'm not going to look into, or comment. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that a content dispute has led us back to Afd again, for the wrong reasons. The nominator believes that with the fictional element gutted, this is no longer a sufficiently notable topic. And I do think this edit seems excessive to me. Adding content about real world perceptions about bad corporations didn't require purging the article of these fictional examples, it seems to me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do not think we should be back at AfD either. However, I do not think the nom made their decision based on the fictional element being gutted; they have targeted articles about neologisms in general and found this new target. As for the purging itself, I was actually considering redoing the list but requiring sources. The vast majority of the previous list was unsourced. I can start working on that, but I don't think the presence of the list means the renaming was warranted, both due to the expanded scope and the lack of conciseness in the titling. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, tricky. Closeapple rightfully doesn't want an "opinion article about real-life institutions" but there's gotta be a way to address notable real-life as well as fictional applications... anyway, disagree with deletion. I do think Afd is really the WP:WRONGFORUM for this especially as it was just kept and editors are clearly willing to work on this to improve it -- albeit with conflicting agendas. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is an actual type (of cultural perception) which has sources such as [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. It meets WP:N and is certainly not WP:NEO. --Fixuture (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like an attempt to use AFD to fix non-AFD problems. Artw (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move~~ to a more appropriate title as there is no support or references for this title. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely false. Did you even read the article or the references used? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there is no such corporation named "Evil corporation" and the term/phrase "Evil Corporation" is a neologism and is used as a tag/description/label of a company/corporation. There is merit in this article but not with this title which is misleading and is in danger of running foul of WP:NOTDICT. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are not supposed to have articles on neologisms if they have little or no use in reliable sources. Here there are many sources that use this term. And regarding article titles, WP:PRECISION states, "Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that." The article title as it is not "misleading" -- it is not anything at all. We do not need to add on clarifying language or disambiguation terms to the title itself. To use an example, we don't take golden parachute and modify it further to make it clear it is a business term. Here we would use the article body to state what "evil corporation" means. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. I was thinking about the title a little differently but WP:PRECISION supports what you are saying. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:18, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VTECRM[edit]

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

Non-notable CRM software. SPA-created product promotion with no independent sources. Google search turned up empty (aside from mentions and listings by resellers and other partner companies). GermanJoe (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might be one of the many "make work" projects sponsored by the European Union. Hard to tell since the only sources I see are in Italian, which I do not speak. There is a North American bias in the English Wikipedia, so would be nice to include more coverage. However, this article is clearly not worth saving, and as above, there do not seem independent sources yet for notability evidence. So delete alas. W Nowicki (talk) 18:03, 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 redirect to Determinism#Varieties. Sandstein 09:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Physical determinism[edit]

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

This was created by then topic banned, now site banned editor User:Brews ohare in violation of his topic ban, as he worked his way towards earning his site ban.

In as much as there’s any content it’s a fork of Determinism which covers the physics of determinism well and in context: see Determinism#Modern scientific perspective. This adds nothing, just a collection of anecdotes culled from google searches, written by someone who understands little of the relevant physics or philosophy. No-one has taken it up since, no point userfying as the editor is blocked. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought initially that there would be something worth saving there, but after reviewing both article, I have to agree this is an unnecessary/redundant WP:FORK of determinism. No objection on redirecting however, since this is a likely search term.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination ----Snowded ^TALK 22:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Determinism#Varieties, where it is mentioned. While the current article doesn't have much worth salvaging, this is a real concept and it is reasonable to have redirect to a section that mentions it. --Mark viking (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rezaul Karim Mazumder[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF. The author de-prodded the article with the comment "The text book is an extensive academic piece of work and had been used as reference book at several higher education institutes." This is true, although the two libraries where I've found Mazumder's Principles of Electronic Circuits are places where he taught, University of Liberal Arts Bangladesh and Daffodil International University, so I'm not especially impressed. It is common for a professor to use their own textbook, so that could explain its presence, or his colleagues may have thought it politic for the library to hold copies.

In any case, the example in the guideline is "has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks ... at multiple institutions of higher education" (emphasis mine). According to the article he has written two textbooks. Only evidence about the use of one book has been shown (in addition to the two libraries above, it is used as a textbook at University of Chittagong.[14]). One book used at a handful of universities does not seem to me to be "a significant impact ... affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

Searches of the usual types found no independent reliable sources deeper than a directory listing or passing mention ("addressed the function", "present in the seminar"). As much as I would like to see more articles on academics, this does not make the cut. Worldbruce (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing close to convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There have been changes made in the article in terms of references. Prof Mazumder's strong affiliation to professional bodies like- Bangladesh Electronics Society, his contribution as a JSPS fellow has been added up. Which fulfills the notability criteria set by WP:PROF, since it states "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aalamanup (talk • contribs) 05:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that those positions are research fellowships which are not the same thing as, for instance, being named a Fellow of the Royal Society. Also please sign your comments by typing ~~~~. Jbh ^Talk 16:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Jbhunley says, the JSPS fellowship was a temporary research position. Being a Bangladesh Electronics Society (BES) fellow may be worth another look. BES has been around 25 years, has about 300 ordinary members, and 40 fellows. I couldn't find any information about how one becomes a fellow. Two other fellows (Saiful Islam (academic) and M. Rezwan Khan) are notable, although not because of BES - their articles don't even mention it. Pinging DGG for his opinion because he seems to have his finger on the pulse of which societies are highly selective/prestigious/major. --Worldbruce (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. I was going to AfD this when I saw it come up again yesterday. The article promotional in tone and the sources are either by him or trivial. It is also a "one-edit-wonder" so I suspect we are dealing with undisclosed paid editing here as well. Jbh ^Talk 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. The fellowship is not an honorary membership carrying international prestige, as is the case for fellows of the IEEE, but just a visiting postdoctoral position. The textbooks are in widespread use, and there is nothing else remotely substantial. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable WP:PROF.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Blalock Jr.[edit]

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

Landscape architect, Does not appear to meet the trequirements for WP:PROF, or the GNG.

No major prizes or important publications. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom by DGG, especially the Prof test. We normally delete those about associate professors, with rare exceptions. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Garcia[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creator also repeatedly removed deletion tags. Finally stopped after several warnings. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did they now. Seems to be gone again. Yvarta (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yvarta: In a case like this do not hesitate with restoring the version prior to removal of the Afd template and give an edit summary like Restoring last revision with {{[[Template:Article for deletion|Article for deletion]]}} per [[WP:EDITATAFD]] and issue the proper level {{Uw-afd}} on the user's talk page. If there are intermediate edits, try with Undo instead. Otherwise restore it manually. Done now. — Sam Sailor 19:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Internet is slow or I would do a more complete search, but based on what I've found in perhaps 100 google hits, I'm leaning towards keep, based on coverage of his various mayoral activities. [15], [16], [17], [18]. So he might just yet pass the second number of WP:POLITICIAN, although not the first of course. Yvarta (talk) 18:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayor of a very small city, a status that does not confer notability. He lost a race to become the Democratic Party candidate for a congressional seat, but entering a party (primary, caucus - not sure which) does not confer notability. I just scanned the first page of a news archive search, and all that I find is local coverage of these political activities which looks routine.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a non-notable local politician and WP:GNG too; the article is sourced to local news coverage. Sro23 (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He's a small-town mayor getting some local press coverage. Nothing notable about that.Glendoremus (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:48, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DeBary is not a large or prominent enough city to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the sourcing here, which consists of two pieces of purely WP:ROUTINE local campaign coverage of the type that all mayors and mayoral candidates always get in their local media, is not good enough to make him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails gng, only routine coverage. Jacona (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per all the comments above regarding Clint P. Johnson. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 04:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gary A. Blair[edit]

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

Does not meet notability standards. ‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 17:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creator also repeatedly removed deletion tags. Finally stopped after several warnings. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 18:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article about the incumbent Mayor of Orange City, Florida since November 2016. Searches for sources suggest that subject fails WP:BASIC/WP:GNG, and he does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Delete per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 18:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being mayor of a small city does not confer automatic notability. No sources demonstrate notability from causes other than mayoral office.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Orange City is not a large or prominent enough city to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the sourcing here, which consists of one piece of purely WP:ROUTINE local election coverage of the type that all mayors and mayoral candidates always get in their local media and one raw table of election results, is not good enough to make him more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as local official with no outside notability or significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Not notable WP:POLITICIAN.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 12:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despot (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs. The sources cited in the article are primary source interviews. Was only able to locate two secondary sources, here and here, and the biographical information in each is vacuous. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Is this a joke? He has a serious decade plus underground career, has been featured on dozens of albums (I know, notability not inherited), the article has dozens of references, he was co-owner of a prominent club and concert venue. A simple Google News search finds mainstream media references to him, such as USAToday. There's no reason for the article to be deleted. This seems like some sort of a vendetta or based on some other pretext. I've never heard of an article with 25 references (that aren't blogs, IMDb, fansites, self/first-party, etc) be nommed for non-notability. JesseRafe (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above points. I found at least one mention in USA Today [19] and outlets like VICE seem to be reliable sources for this type of subject. —Non-Dropframe _talk 18:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An eight sentence-long song review in USAToday does not establish notability. I was only able to locate than two vacuous-sounding secondary sources with biographical content. If other editors can locate more I will withdraw this nomination. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per above. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:55, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Adwent[edit]

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

There's plenty of coverage by him but none of him. I see no coverage meeting WP:GNG and he doesn't meet WP:JOURNALIST. Largoplazo (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a relatively fast google search for anything useful, and agree with Largoplazo. Not enough to pass GNG. I did look for some sort of journalism award, but came up short. Part of the issue might be that his authored articles come up first in google, and it is hard to hone search words to instead just find sources written about Adwent by others. Yvarta (talk) 18:34, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Russian Society[edit]

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

No evidence of notability & no independent sources Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - The page has been updated to include various references about the society and information about its background at Cambridge University, all records are available at the proctors office in Cambridge University and the University Library. Ilyacambridge (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Keep"~~ - Thank you for your help. Yes, more references have been added about the society, its appearance in the news, its links within the university and some of the archives. If more is necessary please let me know. There is currently no information about the society on wikipedia and it would be beneficial to start this article and add to it as more research is done about its history. Ilyacambridge (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote stricken. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you want to reinforce the notability of the subject you will need to give reliable sources such as newspapers and articles from the archives. References to youtube and social media are just not going to cut it. Most university societies do not have have articles because they cannot show their notability. Think to yourself, has this society had any impact outside of the university environment.Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help but wonder if we are not dealing with socks playing with WP:POINT, given what's happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Russian Society.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant mentions in Google Books or Scholar. No quality (independent, reliable, in-depth) sources found so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Keep"~~ Thank you for your concern. And the "socks" being what exactly? Russian Culture and history within the top two universities of the United Kingdom? The society is a University society that has no political affiliation. There is no significant Google Books or Scholar references because it is, again, a university society not a business or money making organisation. The society is one of the biggest in Cambridge and has had some incredible people visit for talks, artists, musicians, authors, journalists etc. Please see the added references. Ilyacambridge (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ilyacambridge: users can only submit one keep or delete vote on an article deletion discussion. Any number of comments can be made, however. clpo13_(talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The modern reincarnation of the society doesn't appear in significant references. The Slavonic Society maybe notable, but I cannot find any references to show this. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any independent reference for the assertion that Nabokov founded the Slavonic Society. Has anyone come across such a source? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as the solution for not having independent notability in substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet College Pasrur[edit]

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

Other than the infobox, this article has stood empty since it was created in April 2016. I try to avoid school notability, but at the moment, notable or not, it's an embarrassment. If nothing else, perhaps this AfD will trigger improvements to the article. Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per precedent and consensus at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES AusLondonder (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has now been expanded enough to be kept. - mfarazbaig —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Mar4d (talk) 03:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mahad Kazi[edit]

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

Author of a self-published 83-page ebook. Fails WP:BASIC with no independent secondary sources, just a single WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview. I can find no other news coverage of him, or suggestion that he meets WP:NAUTHOR. McGeddon (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' mere WP:PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 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. Kurykh (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanhai Ka Pura[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGEO and WP:GNG and also seems to have a bit of promotion in the article. I've done multiple searches on this village and also done a map search of the area, and the only thing i've found is a school called "Kanhai Ka Pura School". This also tells me that this village could be made up. There are also no sources present in the article that establish notability. I proposed this article for deletion per WP:PROD but this was declined per WP:NGEO, but the article has shown no evidence of passing this guideline so far. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 13:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a village so doesn't seem to meet NGEO at face value. Only "notable" living person there was born in 2001 and doesn't even have their own article. I think you could be right about the place being fictitious. Also no sources, so I wouldn't have removed the PROD tag. I'm therefore voting Delete. Patient Zero^talk 13:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the article's content indicates it is WP:MADEUP. We didn't like the old name of the place. There is no such village in Bhind district in the 2011 Indian census. The supposed old name occurs in several places in other districts in Madhya Pradesh. Fails WP:V. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NGEO & most ceirtainly WP:GNG and the possiblility of WP:MADEUP, plus the overall low quality of the article.AtlasDuane (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not so fast. How about this link: https://www.google.com/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Kanhai+Ka+Pura%22? BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GEOLAND. The place exists. Hindustan Times report on a dacoit caught from Bhind belonging to Kanhai ka pura. Lourdes 12:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't show any evidence the village is notable. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 20:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Smartse under CSD G5, as a creation by banned user HemantDas34. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Griffith (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Article claims some significance of the subject, which is why I declned the A7 tagging, but checking for sources I can't find any on GNews, GBooks, etc. His claims to notability are shaky at best and I couldn't find any sources that he passes WP:BIO, WP:GNG or WP:PROF. So Why 13:03, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fal Film Fest[edit]

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

I found two sources about this event but both are from local papers, which is probably not enough to establish notability. Other than those two sources, significant reliable coverage for this film festival is sorely lacking. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a non-notable student film festival. A Gnews search for the full name turns up a sole Ghit for an unrelated event at a Maine high school. Delete It held its first festival last year. Maybe just give it some time -- and notability -- before recreating. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Burger Machine[edit]

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

Cannot find any reliable sources in English that establish notability for company. Prodded article and editor added a reference, but not from what I would consider a reliable source. As it stands, article fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. CNMall41 (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say the source I added isn't reliable? FoxLad (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:UGC and hosted by Blogger. Personal travel blog with no fact checking policy that I can find listed. Unless the site owner is an established expert (which I cannot find anything to support that) it would not be a reliable source IMHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the site's about section, the blogger is a graduate of business administration. Doesn't that make him a expert? FoxLad (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not in my opinion. It only means he is a "graduate of business administration." If that were the case, I would be an expert in computer engineering and I guarantee you I am no where near that. I'm still struggling with Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Neutral, pending further comments from OP in discussion below.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC), per CNMall41's reasoning. Of the references provided, one is a blog with no available info as to establish expertise of the blogger so as to lend reliability to the source (per WP:BLOGS), while another is a job-listing website, which given the dead link and the nature of the source, cannot IMHO reasonably help establish notability of the business/organisation by itself. The only other cited resource, which on the basis of good faith I will assume to be an independent reliable source, does not seem to support notability either, as it merely seems to support the running of the business without a permit at a given moment (and thus would not amount to sufficient/in-depth coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH). A Google search (using the queries "Burger Machine philippines" -wikipedia and "Burger Machine" +philippines -wikipedia) did not result in any other reliable sources either to establish or support notability.--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 21:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here's an 2009 article about the founder from the Philippine Star that confirms there were more than 1400 of these burger stands at one point [20]; and a page about the company in a Philippine business textbook [21]. With due regard for avoiding systemic geographical bias, I'd be inclined to give a national chain of that size the benefit of the doubt.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would too. The only problem is that I believe a franchise with 1,400 locations would have more press. Unfortunately, there are only the brief mentions you presented as well as information from unreliable sources. What you presented would not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH IMO. I agree the place exists, but so do a ton of other franchises that don't meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a book reference (Felina C. Young; Cristobal M. Pagoso (2008). Principles of Marketing' 2008 Ed. Manila, Phillippines: Rex Book Store. pp. 256–258. ISBN 9789712350634. Retrieved 11 January 2017. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)) which I posted on the article Talk page. I didn't add it to the article yet because it differs in some respects, e.g. founders were husband and wife, not sisters; 81 stores in first year; etc. Assuming it's the same company, I !voted keep as this is a reliable source. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source presented above. Can you tell me how, based on the single passing mention source you presented, this would meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:ORG? Again, you proven its existence, nothing more. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I realized only after I posted that the book was the same as mentioned by Arxiloxos. Nevertheless, it appears to me to be a reliable source with enough substance that, assuming it refers to the same organization, supports general notability. Another mention in a publication of longstanding substance is this: The Fookien Times Philippines Yearbook. Philippines: Fookien Times. 1997. p. 284. Retrieved 11 January 2017. from The Fookien Times. And yet another mention here: Asian Business, Volume 36, Issues 7-12. Philippines: Far East Trade Press. 2000. p. 22. Retrieved 11 January 2017. I'm thinking there's enough available if we kept looking to justify keeping the article as I've been able to find these in a relatively short period of time, even with the issue of systemic geographical bias mentioned by Arxiloxos, which clearly affects search results. The does not seem to be a "one-location" restaurant, but one with 1,000s of sites in operation, at least at one time. And notability is not temporary. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me ask it this way as I don't think I was clear enough in my original question. WP:ORG states the company would be notable if it "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." How do the sources you provided meet that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having had a brief look at the additional sources provided by Arxiloxos and Geoff, I must admit that notability may have been met for this topic. Of the four elements of WP:ORG and WP:GNG, I haven't found any reason to doubt the reliability or independence of these secondary sources. The only question is whether significant coverage has been established. Going by the description of significance in WP:GNG

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

and WP:TRIVCOV

On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view.

it is clear that significant coverage only requires that there is enough information so that no original research is required. It does not require substantial coverage. In this light, it seems that significant coverage is also met. At the minimum, the book discusses the case of "Burger Machine" in quite some detail, notwithstanding that length-wise, it does not cover more than one page. Assuming the other two sources also cover the topic in some detail (and I'm willing to take this assumption in good faith, it is likely that notability for the purpose of Wikipedia has been met (regardless of whatever opinion any of us have on the notoriety of the topic).--talk2Chun^{(talk) (contributions)} 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Not sure I follow the reasoning here. WP:TRIVCOV states we need "significant coverage that addresses the subject in detail is required". Note it says "in detail." We have four references, only two of which are readable to determine any depth of what is actually said of the subject. I agree with the definition of WP:SIGCOV in that it must "address the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract content." The only content can we extract from the two sources is that it exists.

2 - WP:CORPDEPTH says that "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." This is trivial coverage as it only mentions its existence. It also says "Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization." Do we have enough to write MORE than a very brief, incomplete stub? Not really. In fact, the only two references that we could use actually contradict each other as far as ownership so we cannot even talk about who founded it. There is nothing else to write about then.

3 - WP:SIGCOV states that ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Based on what we can write about (its existence) would violate Wikipedia:NOT as all we have to write about is that it exists.

4 - Now I am the first person who will vote to keep an article if I can find a reason to. Here, I just don't see how this passes WP:GNG, WP:ORG, or WP:CORPDEPTH. Not even close. If it did based on the rationale provided, I could create Wikipedia pages for any company I can find mentions for as long as they are from at least 2 reliable sources. But again, just my humble opinion based on interpretation of the guidelines.--CNMall41 (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced one of the dead links with a working one. I hope that would clear things up. FoxLad (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notability (web) and WP:Notability (organizations and companies), because there is not significant, sustained coverage of this website where uselectionatlas.org itself is the primary subject. In fact, there is not a single instance of any coverage at all about Dave Leip's Atlas, and we do not know anything about it except what the site claims about itself at http://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/about.php

This is a classic example of confusing the criteria in WP:Notability with WP:Reliable sources. All of the citations given, and the discussion at the article's talk page, are about third parties that have either cited Leip's Atlas, or have attested to its reliability. None of them actually says anything about the site, or gives any details about why they say it's reliable, or that they have fact-checked anything they found on the site. These citations might support an argument at WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that we may cite Leip's Atlas, but no amount of this type of evidence is sufficient to justify having an article about it. Even at that, this website has no editorial oversight, and is entirely the work of one person who has not published in the field and is not a recognized expert in election data, failing WP:SELFPUBLISH and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions. Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would seem the article's creator has a COI and is using Wikipedia for promotional gain. It would seem on this site that the author is using Wikipedia to substantiate claims that this atlas "...has been used a reference for U.S. election and political data by major media outlets. Leip's Atlas has been cited as a "preferred source for election results" by statistician and political pundit Nate Silver" Otherwise, this is just a collection of data, that also exists outside of this atlas, making the subject of this article not meet WP:N. {MordeKyle} ☢ 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the website is self-published, it is an illogical argument to say the publisher "is not a recognized expert in election data" when the opposite is objectively obvious, as the article makes clear in the ten references. There aren't articles about baseballreference.com or allmusic.com or other statistics websites that have Wikipedia articles either. That's the nature reference sites. You don't talk about them, you use them or cite them. 2005 (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You should click through and read the guidelines I referenced. The more complete quote at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions is: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." They're saying whoever this guy is, he would be need to have had his writings on the subject published in a book, magazine, journal, etc. in order to verify that he is an expert on this subject. Leip has not been published elsewhere on this subject, and in fact this is not his field at all.
  Baseball-Reference.com and AllMusic are irrelevant, as explained at other stuff exists. Although, now that you mention them, I wouldn't bet money that they would survive a deletion discussion. The notability of those is only slightly less dubious than Dave Leip's Atlas. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your argument makes no sense. The article has multiple references showing Leip is published. Th Wikipedia uses his material in hundreds of articles. If you point is the trivial one that he hasn't written papers on what it is like to aggregate elections statistics, who cares? That's not the important aspect of how his work is published. As for the "other stuff exists wikisilliness, let's not go there. If you have nothing better to do with your Wikipedia time than also try to delete articles about Baseball Reference or AllMusic, I'd suggest finding a more productive focus. 2005 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has zero references showing Leip is published. Zero. The guidelines say "an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications". Nobody but Leip has published Leip's work. Sources cited Leip, but they didn't publish his work. Meeting the reliable source criteria is not the same as meeting the notability criteria.
      You are free to disagree with the established guidelines, but I don't think you should be terribly shocked when an editor like me supports deletion on the grounds that it fails to meet the plain meaning of our guidelines. You're entitled to your opinion that WP:OSE or WP:WAX are "silly", but those principles are widely accepted and you should expect to have a frustrating experience if you react this way every time you meet someone who follows the guidelines. A good use of your time might be working to change the guidelines, rather than sniping at those just getting on with the work of building the encyclopedia.
      We don't create articles when the subject only gets passing mention, or trivial coverage, and we don't create articles just because the subject is cited a lot. Citations, often nothing but a footnote or a web link, are not significant coverage. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is written like an advertisement. See WP:PROMOTION. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 04:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- an endorsement by Nate Silver is a strong indication of notability and significance, as far as election web sites go. For example, WaPo provides this paragraph, calling the web site "great":

"Dave Leip's great-if-not-super-modern Atlas of Presidential Elections has collected data on contested primaries going back to 1992 -- including vote totals by state for primaries and caucuses, when possible. It allows us to estimate with some certainty how many voters cast their votes for candidates. But, perhaps more interestingly, it lets us figure out which voters actually mattered -- that is, the votes cast before and after a candidate clinched the nomination."

PolitiFact calls the web site "indispensable". Etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, these arguments would support reliability. This is evidence that you can cite this source. It is not evidence of notability. A blurb saying, "this is awesome the best five stars would go there again" is great, but is not significant coverage. It's an endorsement. Two different things. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The fact that the article currently contains Reception section suggests to me that we are dealing with a notable entity here. If this web site were a book, as widely cited as this web site, and with reviews/evaluations by independent 3rd party sources, we would not delete an article on it, I don't think.

Here are additional sources:

American Government and Politics Today: Essentials 2017-2018 Edition. The review is brief (two paragraphs), but the book also encourages the reader to go to the site and use the calculator.
In The Emerging Democratic Majority, the web site is described as "excellent".
In Delirium: The Politics of Sex in America, the site is referred to as easily accessible and searchable.
There's a substantial paragraph, possibly more, in White House Studies Compendium, Volume 4.

In totality, I'd say this passes GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read wp:GNG? Right at the top, it defines 'significant coverage'. You haven't cited anything that meets those criteria. Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In total, there are currently seven sources that pass a judgement on the subject, not just cite from it. To me, this amounts to WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Passing judgement is not significant coverage. Significant coverage tells us facts about the subject. Facts we can put in the article. Quote: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These blurbs, no matter how enthusiastically they endorse the website, tell us nothing about the website. What is the point of having a Wikipedia article? To give readers information. Where do we get the information that goes in the article? From the significant coverage found in our sources. What information do we have about Leip's Atlas? Nothing. We don't know anything about the website, except that a bunch of other sources trust it. Not a single one of these endorsements even tells us why they trust the site. Your entire article consists of no verifiable information except a litany of sources that give Leip's Atlas a thumbs up. Try this: delete everything from the article that is not verifiable in a third party source. What do you have left?

All of which is just another way of saying that reliability is not the same as notability. Hats off to sources that are reliable. All respect. But we don't write an article about every reliable source. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These three sources provide facts that can be put in the article, not just endorsements:

Washington Post
There's a substantial paragraph, possibly more, in White House Studies Compendium, Volume 4.
American Government and Politics Today: Essentials 2017-2018 Edition.

K.e.coffman

Keep – This has become a reference work over the years. — JFG ^talk 13:34, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Gurov[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Unreferenced article since 2005. XXN, 11:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~though a BLP PROD probably would have been just as effective.~~ —Non-Dropframe _talk 19:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPPROD only applies to articles created after March 2010. – Joe (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, quite right, my mistake. —Non-Dropframe _talk 13:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not evident. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:17, 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 deleted per WP:SNOW. Also qualifies for WP:A7 and WP:G5 but this better reflects consensus. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Telco Productions Inc.[edit]

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

no indication of notability, unreferenced — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage in reliable sources. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Open Source 2.0 check me 21:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ per WP:GNG. Open Source 2.0 check me 02:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Second !vote struck — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After these, merged and redirected to Tribune Entertainment. Open Source 2.0 check me 02:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to the above issues of no reliable sources, essentially incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source, no claim even in the article for notability, and incomprehensible. First Light (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability established at prior AfD discussion. Notability is not temporary, and no argument has been put forward to suggest the prior evidence of notability was incorrect or that the prior AfD conclusion was wrong. Even without the prior AfD, sufficient sources are shown here and in the article itself to establish notability. Any future AfD should address this and the prior AfD and demonstrate how these conclusions are flawed. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djungelboken[edit]

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

Non notable play. Nothing on Swedish Wikipedia about it either. sv:Djungelboken (olika betydelser). Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 15:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The previous AfD from 2012 was a clear "keep" outcome, and I have linked to it here above using {{subst:oldafdlist|The Jungle Book (Swedish play)}}. From that discussion it is worth quoting Julle: I did a quick search in Mediearkviet ("The Media Archive"), where a number of Swedish newspapers keep digital archives. The director, Alexander Mørk-Eidem, was nominated for the Swedish Theater Critics Award in the children and youth category in 2007, citing his work with the play (Svenska Dagbladet 2008-01-05). I find (mainly positive) reviews in pretty much all of the major Swedish newspapers, e.g. Aftonbladet 2007-01-13, Metro (TT) 2007-01-13, Svenska Dagbladet 2007-01-10, Göteborgs-Posten 2007-01-14. There are also shorter articles in newspapers in neighbouring countires (Finnish Hufvudstadsbladet 2007-01-09, Norwegian Dagbladet). And then yet again when it moved to another stage in Västerås (e.g. Svenska Dagbladet 2007-12-23). The adaption is also mentioned in later articles, referred to as a "success" or "cash cow" ("kassako"). So, yes, in obvious need of sources and of a rewrite, but definitely notable.

and I do not see the WP:JNN argument being a "strong reason supporting deletion", cf. WP:LASTTIME.

I have added a few more references with significant coverage readily found online, both from reliable, independent sources:

Lars Collin (10 January 2007). "Våldsamma tag för Mowgli i framtidsdjungel". SvD.se (in Swedish). Retrieved 26 January 2017.
"Alexander Mørk-Eidem har premiärfest på Wasahof". DN.SE. 12 January 2007. Retrieved 26 January 2017.

but there are more sources available, e.g. coverage about the Norwegian premiere in 2008, and several of its later productions in e.g. 2011 and 2014. The sources provided and the further existence of suitable sources are what we use to determine if notability is met, and WP:GNG is met here. The lack of an article on sewiki is not an indication of lack of notability, see WP:OTHERLANGS. — Sam Sailor 16:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same reasons as last time. /Julle (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ibex (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Reinstated after a soft delete without any rationale (except that it pissed of the editor as per the edit summary). Page has no references, notability is not inherited. Karst (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per comments on first AfD. GigglesnortHotel (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 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 speedy delete. fact-free spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Future School[edit]

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

WP:COI blurb (with WP:USERNAME violation) for a school that doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, basically just a reference to their website. JamesG5 (talk) 09:36, 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow (time)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No sources. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a widely used concept, like present and yesterday and it has a source. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the current version is little more than a WP:DICDEF, to say the concept of tomorrow isn't notable, or that no source can be found for this (see WP:BEFORE), is just ludicrous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its one of the most difficult subjects that I have ever had to search for. I'll try harder. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in linguistics and philosophy sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HASPOT. I have just added a section entitled "Learning and language". --Edcolins (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper Trigg, Roger, "Thought and Language." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 79, Aristotelian Society, Wiley, 1978 contains the sentence "The concept of tomorrow is doubtless very difficult to acquire without language." I can't access the full paper however... Perhaps the article could be further expanded based on that paper. --Edcolins (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Castañeda[edit]

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

There is one link (of unclear notability) that merely confirms that the individual exists. I do not see anything in the article which would make him notable according to specific criteria, and he seems to fail WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he does seem to be active as a model [22], but I could find no sources to help show WP:GNG. Yvarta (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this mirrors what IMDb would host and that's not our articles here, and there's then nothing else convincing overall. SwisterTwister talk 22:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Sadad Al Husseini[edit]

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

Promotional article for not notable businessman, created by a editor related to him (taking into account the name of an editor) Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds promotional written like an advert.FITINDIA (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have redirected Sadad Al Husseini to Dr Sadad Al Husseini,A duplicate page created by the same user.FITINDIA (talk) 09:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant bio-spam very obviously created by a COI/PAID user, as Husseini energy matches http://www.husseinienergy.com/ He may be notable, news and book sources reveal that he at least is often quoted in English language sources, but in a case like this I tend to agree with a view held by DGG that Any article edited by a promotional editor should always be deleted. This is the only way to discourage people from using the WP for advertising. If the subject is actually important, someone else will create an article. Rescuing it sends the message that if your write an unacceptable article about yourself, someone will very possibly fix it for you, and therefore you might as well try to advertise here. It furthermore sends the message that if you hire someone to write an article and they take money for doing this, and they write the usual unacceptable article such people write, then someone will fix it for you free, while the guy who wrote the bad article gets the money. (diff) — Sam Sailor 19:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 19:18, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady L. Bukh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST full of descriptions of his cases. Already some of the victims have expressed their concerns that this article harasses them. Which violates WP:BLP. From previous deletion discussion it is clear that it is a COI. Created to promote the subject. An WP:SPA created this large and well formatted article in a single edit. The account was created at 07:44 and the article 07:51 on 24 November 2014. A new account can not create such large, well formatted article in just 7 minutes. It must be a WP:SOCK of any expert wikipedian. Meaninf its an Undisclosed paid editing. - Mar11 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per COVERAGE, per WP:GNG. plenty of good sources. That a SPA created the article is irrelevant as long as the article subject passes WP:GNG. This article was put through an AfD in July 2015, with No consensus result. I see nothing that points towards a Delete !vote, as the article seems to have been improved even further since then. BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banchbo Sharad Samman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable award failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable award at an non-notable festival won by non-notable people. This is speedy delete material. Xaxing (talk) 07:49, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Ebrahim[edit]

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

The Gambia is a republic and i'm not convinced this subject is notable enought to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not a real royal. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Berman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Fails WP:NACTOR.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. His article is so badly written, it doesn't highlight his Wonder Years role. That and his other credits are just enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virasb Vahidi[edit]

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

Mid-upper level business executive who had a brief stint as CEO of Otter Media.[23] Not much media notice otherwise, so he fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this subject is not notable. The article is also written like a curriculum vitae and WP:TNT is appropriate here. Xaxing (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:16, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Costello III[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the content can be sourced, it might be notable. However, the page seems like a hoax. Aside from an imdb page, I would be sure it is a hoax. The first 4 pages that I checked in the footnotes were either dead or had no supporting content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Andrews[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Does not have to satisfy any specific SNG if there is sufficient NEXISTS generally, but while there is some material available, I cannot see sufficient IRSS. I suspect this person is potentially notable, but cannot readily find the relevant required sources. Aoziwe (talk) 11:59, 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. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mumtaz Ali Kazi[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. I could not locate reliable sources to support the information written in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 05:31, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since his career is basicly pre-internet it will be much harder to find. However I did find a reference quite easily, the claims are significant, so this person will easily pass WP:PROF, and you could be sure there will be more references in newspapers and other publications. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment>~~ Keep. Certainly does not pass WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS research citations. May pass WP:Politician or WP:Prof#C3 . Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "President of Pakistan Academy of Sciences for two terms during 1978-84 and 1985-88" definitely suggests notability. There's an obit published in Proceedings of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences. It cannot be fully viewed, but its presence in the publications confirms his role in the academy, and the overall significance of Kazi's career. I adjusted the lead to make notability clearer. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the Academy position is enough. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: academy position is strongly indicative of notability. Double sharp (talk) 05:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree that his position as president of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences establishes notability. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Presidency of the Pakistan Academy of Sciences makes him notable. --Uhooep (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Draftify. John from Idegon (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anjusha Chaughule[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO: No significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details to support her work also I can't see if she has played a major role in India’s Daughter, I tried per WP:INDAFD but failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GSS-1987, the creator of this article has asked at Teahouse how to save the article while they work on it. Obviously Draft-ifying it would do do that. As no one has voted on this and you are a page mover, would you be willing to extend the author some good faith and move it to draft? As I am uninvolved here, if you choose to do that I'll be happy to close this as withdrawn for you. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@John from Idegon:

Done: now let's see if the author can provide some independent reliable sources to support the notability. Please go ahead and close this AfD as Draftify. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 03:40, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)[edit]

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

WP:OR, overly detailed coat rack. In fact just a list of programs, often not notable, broadcasted (not made) by a local channel. And according to an article owner: WHO ARE YOU?! YOU DON'T ANYHOW CHANGE THE COLOUR AT "List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)"! THAT PAGE IS FOR SINGAPOREANS TO READ! NOT FOR OVERSEAS PEOPLE LIKE YOU! IF THAT PAGE MADE YOU PUKE, THEN DON'T READ IT! NO ONE ASK YOU TO READ! BY THE WAY, THAT PAGE IS NOT FOR READING! If the page is Singaporeans only, it is not relevant for the worldwide Wikipedia. And when the article is not for reading, what else is the use of this article? The Banner talk 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the nom is correct on the facts. The articles for A Child's Hope II, 118 II, and Don't Worry, Be Healthy (to sample a few found in Category:MediaCorp Chinese language programmes) all describe the series as produced by or originally airing on MediaCorp Channel 8. And if this channel has notable original programming, then it merits a list for those programmes. Let's hear from someone actually familiar with the subject matter before we jump to deletion conclusions. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also been abusing people similarly on their user talk pages. But this is why warnings need to be issued, even for IPs. None have been. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful list of dramas on Channel 8, which is a channel of the national (and only) TV broadcaster Mediacorp. Channel 8 is watched by a lot of people and I think it is encyclopaedic and helpful to preserve this list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about original programming The vast majority of dramas on Channel 8 are produced by government owned Mediacorp itself in Singapore. And the Channel 8 itself is one of the few local television channels here (There are only 7 television channels in Singapore, all controlled by Mediacorp). These few channels have lots of viewers and it is useful to keep this info. The side effect of lots of viewers is the disruptive editing and "fan edits" on these articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually keep a watch on these articles and I am aware of sourcing/NOR problems. However, sometimes it slips through my watchlist. If there is any disruptive editing, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we are not a TV guide. Sandstein 09:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public TV of Azov[edit]

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

Seemingly fails WP:RS; the article contains no independent third-party sources at all. Buzz105 (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of links to the article. It's very important and influential local channel. --Ivasykus (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ZK Spreadsheet[edit]

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

Not notable and the external references are to itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziphit (talk • contribs) 18:51, December 24, 2016 (UTC)

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself. @Ziphit: For future nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. --Finngall ^talk 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are to code source sites or to the program's own documentation. GNews search retrieves 5 hits, all to press releases. No significant independent coverage in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:53, 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 no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Heim[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. found no real coverage and hardly any article links to this. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article was under-resourced but the subject is notable per WP:MUSICBIO#1, #9 and #12.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to form an opinion but am leaning to the delete side. @Shaidar cuebiyar: Can you list which references you are relying on for #1, #9, and #12 please. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few of them that are in the article, but specifically: the current refs 1&3, 6&7. Additionally consider the following items: 1, 2, and 3.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is a biography that was supplied by the article's subject, per the note at the reference "Biography provided by the composer — current to March 2007". As such it's a primary source. Reference 3 is actually broken. You need to go to reference 1 to find the list. Reference 6 lists the subject as a guest, but provides very little else. Reference 7 is the detail for reference 6. Together they actually provide only one reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1&3 are provided by an independent body and the catalogue shows that the subject has performed/composed numerous works. Refs 6&7 show that he was the subject of a national radio programme (yes, he was a guest on it!) which described his research on dementia and baroque music.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is still very clearly a primary source, per the note on the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources, some for the baroque study and some on additional content on his work as a theatre director.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm yet to form an opinion but some of the references in the article don't seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, regardless of what WP:MUSICBIO might say. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to have a good amount of references, and Mr. Helm has been talked about in 3rd party sources. I would say that we should leave it alone, or try to improve it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MusicDealers[edit]

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

I feel that the reasoning given by @SwisterTwister: in their PROD (removed by the page creator) is valid; "Searches have found nothing but mere announcements, mentions and listings with none of it being the needed substance and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else; listed sources are still only the mirrored announcements and mentions." No indication of WP:ORG being met. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my analysis and basis, with WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing, applying. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wholly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don Christensen (artist)[edit]

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

I'm unconvinced that WP:NARTIST is met. Hufpo is the best source, but interviews are not great for establishing notability. Next best is NYT but he is not the subject of it and it does not discuss his art. Coverage in local newspapers is of no use for determining notability. SmartSE (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ARTIST. exhibits, awards are unsourced, and difficult to find. #1 is primary. #2 is a blog post. #3 is the best of the lot, but it is in the the local paper in one of the wolrd's most internecine art communities #4 the NYTimes is about his activity as a collector of another artist. # 5 is about a film about a childhood friend of Christensen's #6 is a listing about an exhibition organized by Christensen as a collector # 7 is primary and # 8 is about a group exhibition in the Hamptons in which his work was included. All in all, it adds up to proof that Christensen is extremely well-connected in the Hamptons, that he is the close friend of artists, and the sibling of an artist, but not that he is notable in his own right either as a collector or as an artist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) yhW oS 07:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Bianchi[edit]

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

Article does not assert notability and the refs provided barely qualify as superficial. Googling suggests that he's an unremarkable sports journalist with no particular notoriety or claim to fame. Most Google hits are for stuff he's written. I did find this small bio and although it's better than the sources we have it's still nothing to base an article on. Matt Deres (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is quite short and could use some expansion and references, but Bianchi is notable enough for an entry. He has been a prominent Florida sports journalist / commentator / whiner (I'm not much of a fan, not that that's relevant) for years in print, radio, and TV, and he's won several state and national awards for sports journalism. Mike clearly meets the notability requirements, imo. Zeng8r (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm with Zeng8r. Bianchi is prominent enough to have an article. Lepricavark (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whether he's prominent or not is irrelevant. He needs to be notable in the Wikipedia sense and that means he needs to have "significant coverage" in reliable third-party sources. The current article doesn't have any of that and I couldn't find anything when I looked. If you can find some, great, toss them in there and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. Matt Deres (talk) 03:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment To support my earlier point above, a quick search turned up the fact that Bianchi was named an "Alumnus of Distinction" by the University of Florida's College of Journalism and Communications in 2013. This page on the UF CJC's website lists some of his awards and accomplishments.. Sports journalists don't fit neatly into any of Wikipedia's notability categories - by the nature of their jobs, they do much more writing (and in Bianchi's case, talking on TV and radio as well) about athletes and teams than they'll ever be written or talked about themselves. But when someone has successfully worked in many different facets of the sports reporting / commentating industry for many years and has received multiple recognitions from his peers, it seems to me that he's notable enough for an article. (And again, I'm not much of a fan, just giving credit where credit is due.) Zeng8r (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being named an "alumnus of distinction" by his own alma mater is not, in and of itself, a claim of notability that would get a person into an encyclopedia — and while winning an award from the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association might be, it would still have to be referenced to reliable source coverage about him and not just to the NSSA's own self-published website. There are lots of people who sound notable in theory, but simply don't actually have the depth of RS coverage needed to actually clear our inclusion rules — and while journalists do tend to fall in that camp given that their job is to report the story while generally trying not to be the story, that fact does not mean that we can exempt journalists from having to pass WP:GNG on the depth of sourcing. Because we're an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, we can't guarantee that every "anybody" who edits the article is actually doing so responsibly or correctly — our articles are quite regularly overwritten with promotional PR puffery and/or dirtwashed with unsourced criticism or "controversy", and reliable sourcing is the only defense that we have against inappropriate edits. So we can't exempt somebody from having to be the subject of enough media coverage to clear GNG — unfortunate though it may be, there are some topics for whom the necessary depth of sourcing just isn't there, so we just can't actually keep an article regardless of how notable they sound like they should be. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've been an active Wikipedian for almost a decade, so I know the notability guidelines and the reasons behind them pretty well, thanks. There probably be should be a specialized list of notability criteria for members of the media, but there isn't, so Wikipedia:Notability (media) is a good resource. Yes, it's primarily concerned with the notability of broadcast outlets, but it's also instructive when considering broadcast personalities, especially this section:

...the media does not often report on itself. It is not often that one media outlet will give neutral attention to another, as this could be seen as "advertising for the competition." Also, when searching for sources on media outlets, the results are often pages produced by the outlet, making it difficult to find significant coverage in multiple sources. As media outlets are themselves a significant proportion of our sources for other content, however, it serves an important purpose for Wikipedia to provide neutral and verifiable information about those sources so that readers are able to evaluate their reliability and scope. Accordingly, the notability standards for media organizations and content are designed to be as inclusive, not restrictive, as possible within the bounds of verifiability in reliable sources.

Bianchi is a well-known, award winning journalist who has worked in three different broadcast mediums for almost 20 years. (Four, if you count online commentary.) Right there, he meets the first criteria for inclusion for a periodical, which, I would argue, confers notability on the person who won the award. As to your other points, the article is far too short, but it isn't puffery, and I don't see any indication that a PR person or Bianchi himself wrote it to make him look good. (And now that it's on my watchlist, it will never turn into a PR piece.) It just needs expansion and the inclusion of more facts besides a basic list of where he's worked and what awards he's won. And there are some good sources of information. It's inaccurate to call the UF and NSSA award pages "self-published" - they're independent institutions, independent of Bianchi and each other. Looking at the big picture and keeping WP:NOTPAPER in mind, Bianchi meets the notability standards. Zeng8r (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument that the sources for awards are not reliable because they are self-published (see WP:SELFSOURCE) ignores the meaning of "self", in this case. The National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association is a major award and is evidence of notability. Jacona (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Almavision. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KWJU-CD[edit]

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

Station is no longer broadcasting, not notable, and no sources can be found regarding the television station ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 03:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Almavision Aired nothing but that, pretty much a glorified translator for Almavision's KTAV-LD for the northern part of the Southland. The majority of the article is filled with information about the station before it aired one image, which is a good sign of a short-lived station with little history. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:18, 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 redirect to Exhaust (band). There is limited participation on this AFD. Although there is one keep !vote, the argument that this article doesn't meet WP:NALBUM has not been rebutted. A pragmatic solution here is to redirect it to the article about the band. The history of the article is preserved in case anyone may want to merge content. (non-admin closure) Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaust (album)[edit]

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

Delete I was able to find only one review from AllMusic about this album. I can't find much about the band that created it, Exhaust (band), either, but more than for this individual album. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article obviously needs improvement and references (it's a stub), I don't see what deleting it would achieve. The band is a side-project for GSY!BE drummer Aidan Girt, and this is the self-titled album. Information for the album is provided by the label, and here is another review. +mt 05:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that review; although it appears to be on the personal website of a person named Aaron, he seems to have written a lot of reviews. I wasn't suggesting deleting the article about the band and I am not questioning the notability of Girt, even though his article has only one reference; however, I don't see that this particular album passes WP:NALBUM. Notability of an album isn't inherited from the artist or band, and the record company info doesn't help with notability either. If the album info were added to the Exhaust (band) article, and the album title made into a redirect, the result would still be fairly short; readers could read more conveniently about both in the same article.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Exhaust (band) to preserve history. f eminist 03:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Pro Cup[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A poorly attended previous AfD ended in no consensus in July. The article on the International Federation of BodyBuilders says, "The IFBB annually holds more than 2,500 competitions at the local, national, regional, continental, and World Championships levels." Given that so many competitions are held, national competitions, particularly short lived competitions such as in Canada, simply are not notable, while higher level competitions, such as regional, continental and worldwide championships most likely are notable. Delete for failure to satisfy both WP:GNG and applicable sports notability guidelines. Do not redirect, as title is too generic to make a good redirect. Safiel (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly formatted and unsourced. Also appears to fail WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus Two[edit]

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

This term is nothing more than a colloquial phrase, and has already been mentioned in Education_in_India#Secondary_education. AT best this article may be redirected to Education_in_India#Secondary_education ChunnuBhai (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say to redirect to that target but this is also mentioned as being part of the Nepali educational system. I'm not sure what to do about that. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary entry. TimothyJosephWood 16:36, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Millie B[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NMUSIC. TOOSOON John from Idegon (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. WP:TOOSOON, WP:Music and WP:GNG all valid here. Subject does have 2 youtube videos with half a million views each and 20,000 instagram followers, but this is not a significant following. It must be noted that those videos are answer songs to one with over 2m views. Rayman60 (talk) 03:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brightstar partners[edit]

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

I do not believe this company has the sort of in-depth coverage required to meet WP:CORP. This was actually an uncontested PROD: however, the reason supplied for PRODing it was "irrelevance to the public," which is not a valid deletion reason, and so I felt compelled to de-PROD and send it here. Vanamonde (talk) 09:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and REDIRECT to Avnet. Definitely not notable, but since it was acquired by Avnet in 2012 it would be reasonable to mention it there, merging in whatever can be properly sourced. Not currently in Avnet, but Avnet is already tagged as incomplete. MB 04:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a consultancy firm. I am seeing nothing more significant than fastest-growing lists and then routine coverage at the point when the firm was taken over; no evidence provided or found to indicate that it ever met WP:CORPDEPTH, or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jenevive[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable musician: all I could find about her online are a few artist profiles, lyrics pages, and apparently a Kickstarter page. Not much specifically about her. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

c Not sure if this is the way I should respond, but there are a few references up and I'm working on getting more up, do not delete the page. Wiki is being policed way too hard and is lowering the appeal of this platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StephanieLloyd (talk • contribs) 06:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely this is how to do it. This is where the resolution will be made as to whether the article should stay or go, so any input you have will be most likely to be noticed here. Also, any and all input you can provide is valuable. Good luck! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC

c It appears that a quick judgement for deletion was made based on a small amount of information that had been posted at the beginning stages of building the page and a call for deletion was made five min into creating the Wikipedia page for Jenevive before all of the information had been posted. The final version of the page had not been completed and posted until later after the need for deletion had been decided. It is in my opinion that the completed page for Jenevive meets the minimum criteria to remain posted on Wikipedia.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of TNT KaTropa import players[edit]

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

This is unreferenced and this list really should not have its own article. This is the only team in the PBA that has its own separate article for their import players. If deletion is not applicable, maybe merging and redirecting this this into TNT KaTropa all-time roster is a possible move. ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Other teams, which have this list, have it included in the main article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

VintageAirRally[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet the criterion for WP:NOTABILITY, and also seems self-promotional, in a sense... TJH2018 talk 19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for notice. I am not trying to self-promote, rather to create an entry about this annual event that is strictly factual, describing the event. Please advise what steps can be taken to keep this article online! Thanks Jeremyjmartin (talk) 19:28, 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 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell more about the VintageAirRally, the website only has limited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.75.202 (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Clear notability with sourcing to The Times Daily Mail, and BBC. Thank you to Jeremyjmartin for those references. WP:BEFORE seems to have been skipped, because even a simple Google News search brings back further references from multiple other WP:RS Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 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. SOFTDELETE per no participation herein other than from the nominator. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Grove (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HydroCord[edit]

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

No claims of significance, could find nothing on the web and no in-depth coverage. The only thing I could find about hydrocord is a system for handles on water bottles. Fails WP:PRODUCT as this is an experimental system it may be WP:TOOSOON as it fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references that are independent of the company that developed this product. - MrOllie (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be a very special system with application strictly limited to hydro power plants. A redirect to Statkraft would perhaps be plausible with better sourcing, if the system was essential to the company, but that does not seem to be the case, and I have found no sources that support this is meeting WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Delete for now per WP:DEL8. — Sam Sailor 17:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sign of notability. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:32, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodstock Ballpark[edit]

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

Proposed small ballpark that never materialized. Plans have been scrapped (see here for instance. There is some local coverage about the various delays and ultimate cancellation of the project but I don't think this is sufficient to firmly establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 15:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Note the team supposed to occupy the park was also judged non notable today in this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/McHenry_County_K-Nines Rayman60 (talk) 02:49, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seafarers (ethnic groups)[edit]

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

WP:NEO, WP:PRECISION. Unsourced and unsourceable. Scope is too vague to be covered in an encyclopedia. "Seafarer" has a dictionary definition of a sailor or a traveler by sea. The term is not used in academic sources or in common parlance to refer to sea-living cultures collectively, whether Austronesians or not. Which brings into question on what this article is about. The existing content of the article is already covered at the individual pages of the groups linked here, the dab page at Sea gypsies/Sea nomads (which in contrast, are actually commonly used terms), and the article on the Austronesian peoples. This article dates back to 2005 and seems to have started out as a WP:DICDEF for Seafarers (currently a redirect to Sailor) that slowly morphed into a haphazard WP:CONCEPTDAB, then got split off. OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nom has noted, "seafarers" is not a designation for any ethnic group. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seafaring is an occupation not a ethnicity. Quetzal1964 19:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Doesn't Sea Gypsies deserve to be a broad-concept article, though? If this article isn't too horribly written, it could be renamed as such to replace the current dab page. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ and rename to Sea gypsies (with lowercase g) to supplant the current dab page, per above comment. The seafarers term fails WP:NEO, but sea gypsies doesn't, and is what describes the actual scope of the current article. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "Sea gypsies" and "Sea nomads" aren't abstract or difficult to define, thus WP:BROAD isn't necessary. It's a catchall term that is used quite specifically in almost all sources to refer to one of the groups listed in the dab page. Furthermore, you simply can not describe multiple unrelated cultures in a single page when all they have in common is that they live (or lived) in boats. The content of the current Seafarers (ethnic groups) article is quite horribly all over the place because of this. Going into detail for some, mentioning others only briefly. The scope seesaws between highly specific to very very generalized. Because again, the only connecting characteristic in the article is that "they all live in boats." That's it. All of the groups listed in the dab page have their respective articles that treat their subjects more thoroughly without conflating anything or implying a cultural relationship where it doesn't exist. If an article should ever be created, it should be on the topic of Sea nomadism (cf. Nomadic pastoralism), as in an article on the way of life in anthropological terms, and not simply a (spottily) expanded list of every single culture that has ever lived or traveled by boat (which is the case here). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken another look, and while I still think the subject warrants an article (probably best based on an anthropological point of view, as you said), I'm convinced that the current article isn't a good start in that direction, so struck my !vote. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Web Business Laboratory[edit]

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

Maybe there are better sources in Korean, but I'm not finding basically anything of any reliability in English. Was trimming the article originally for improper ELs, but it doesn't look like the problem of relying to heavily on primary sources is fixable at this time, because that's pretty much all there is, again, at least in English. TimothyJosephWood 16:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it's simply a lab, there's no substance here for actual independent notability and I see none of the needed improvements with it. SwisterTwister talk 02:16, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – After several source searches, I have only found one reliable source (link), but this only has a passing mention. Does not meet WP:N at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuicksellOnline[edit]

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

Non-notable site/company. No evidence of substantial coverage in RS that I can find. Article was appears to have been created b someone with a COI (although they've since tried to remove evidence of that). Fyddlestix (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a yet-to-launch e-commerce site, in which circumstance it is unsurprising that no evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability (WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG) can be found. It is also worded as an advertisement ("Our customer friendly features") which combined with the lack of claim of notability would have made CSD A7+G11 possible, but at this stage maybe it is better to let the AfD take its course. AllyD (talk) 08:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: would have speedied this per WP:G11. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:23, 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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boltblue[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. References are either dead links, brief mentions or announcements, not about the company, or from unreliable sources. The references that I do find fall short of WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising sourced by only PR announcements and mentions, with policy violations in that alone. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete since the company has been around for long enough and there might be a wide quantity of coverage, but the article is now so promotional in tone do not see anything worth saving. W Nowicki (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MultiTail[edit]

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

May not be notable. Only a few mentions in news, and it appears that those mentions may have been paid advertising. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MANUAL. I could only find very passing mentions of this product; not sufficient for an encyclopedia entry. Otherwise no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently this is a useful tool. I find instructions for installing it in several books. All short mentions. Nothing significant. I didn't find coverage needed for notability. Gab4gab (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Tail (Unix)#Variants, where it is mentioned. The book Practical Linux Security Cookbook has three pages devoted to MultiTail. There is an in-depth article on the utility at Linux Magazine and a shorter article at ServerWatch. I think these are enough to establish marginal notability per WP:GNG. Even if notability is disputed, however, the sources definitely form a basis for verifiability of basic facts about the software in independent RS. Wikipedia policy dictates that outright deletion is uncalled for when there are alternatives to deletion available. One such alternative is a redirect to Tail (Unix)#Variants, where it is already mentioned. --Mark viking (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fairly long articles briefly mention some items of interest for wikipedia content. Most of the coverage is on to how to install and use the utility. I'm liking the redirect idea. Gab4gab (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above analysis. not important as per wiki standards. Light2021 (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising overall. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of RHI records (individual)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG, Also WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Most of the records listed do not have any values associated with them. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user seeking to promote the sport of roller hockey. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Rayman60 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No problem with deleting this as there are no values for most of the listings, with no prejudice to recreation if someone ever has the values because as I would point out that WP:NOTSTATSBOOK wouldn't apply to a page like this because per WP:5P Wikipedia contains elements of an Almanac and lists of records holders is a very prominent part of Sports Almanacs. Its the reason why pages like this and season pages are completely normal all across the wiki. NOTSTATS applies to indiscriminate collections of stats, where this is a discriminating list of record holders. -DJSasso (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total cruft with nothing worth keeping even if it could be verified, which it can't. Most of these "records" are not even filled in, not that it would help if they were. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekojoe Marvé[edit]

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

PROD (as an unsourced BLP) was removed claiming that sources were there, but I see no citations or references (just two external links to unacceptable sources of the subject's own website and his Facebook page) Page exists only to promote subject's brand new clothing line (founded in 2017!) with two (against rules) in-line outside links to the clothing website. When I do a Google search for the subject's name, next to nothing comes up, other than hits for his social media profiles. Mabalu (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - shameless & transparent vanity page for an exceptionably non-notable person. No refs. No info. No significant following. Rayman60 (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is all self sourced. I can find no RS with anything on this subject. Fails notability. Gab4gab (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nothing notable about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 13:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP PROD was incorrectly removed. The article had no references (key word) at the time it was nominated, just external links - which definitely aren't the same thing. Never mind - fails the GNG. Delete it with fire. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Exemplo347: I think you'll find that WP:BLPPROD says they are the same thing, nor do they have to be reliable. Adam9007 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It also says "the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article" but I suppose you stopped reading before that. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - And it also says "To be eligible for a BLPPROD tag, the entry must be a biography of a living person and contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise)". Adam9007 (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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