Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 January	7 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Math-o-mir[edit]

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

PRODed by Toddst1 where the concerns of non-notability and a use of Wikipedia for simply "software listing" still applies and my own searches found nothing but a few tech columns, nothing of actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 23:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a WP:NN product. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only sources I could find appear to be reviews, not independent of the subject. Brad v 03:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Near unanimous consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany[edit]

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

Set of inherently subjective opinion polls about undefinable and time-related qualities such as "success" and "popularity" with an "aggregate" that essentially constitutes original research. I do not believe this to be an encyclopedic subject and would like further input on the matter from the community. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are articles for

which are more or less as good as this one and all of which are, I think, notable. There was a 2008, related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical rankings of United States Presidents. I think the arguments at that AfD more or less stand. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is a collection of objective research, so that it is a valid article. How useful the information is remains another question. If this were to be deleted, so ought the other 5 listed in the preceding contribution: we should have all or none. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is well referenced and the subjects of the polls are notable. This is not OR by the article creator, but is a synthesis of a number of reputable polls. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'd prefer to see scholarly rankings similar to those in other articles if possible. Mélencron (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This research, while ultimately the result of accumulating opinions, is undoubtedly of interest to readers. I really don't see a compelling enough reason to delete it. Dustin (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is more a pull together of various polls and sources not opinion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have these for many countries' leaders — they are usually well-sourced. I'd be fine with a larger conversation about the usefulness of these articles, but they don't appear to be much of a problem, and bringing them one at a time to AFD probably isn't the way to do it. Brad v 03:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely WP:OR. It is not the job of Wikipedia to condense or summarize different sources in this way. If this article is to remain then Wikpedia should simply report the results of the polls and not attempt to weigh and rank results from different sources. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views[edit]

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

Another YouTube article that does not follow WP:N guidelines. The only sources are either this playlist or direct links to YouTube videos. Even if some sources commentate on "the fastest YouTube videos to reach 100 million views", users could potentially abuse the system and end up creating multiple, pointless articles such as "Fastest YouTube videos to reach 250 million", "Fastest YouTube videos to reach one billion", and so forth. In simple terms, isn't a wikipedia page called "Fastest-grossing films to $1 billion" or "Fastest-grossing films to gross to $2 billion", instead that information is included in the List of fastest-grossing films article, complete with many reliable secondary sources. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly sourced list that is likely unverifiable. The source is a user created list on Youtube, not even Youtube itself. Fails relevant notability guidelines. Probably should be a discussion for List of most subscribed users on YouTube and List of most liked YouTube videos, which have identical issues. FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is built using third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This entire list is sourced directly to YouTube, which is not a valid source for an article about YouTube. This is a classic example of original research. Brad v 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above reasons. Unverifiable claims who only use Youtube videos and playlists as sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Notability not established (borderline A7, even). – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Berk Ergin[edit]

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

Very very young journalist, who is not a politician. Can't find any evidence for it. Possibly mix-up in translation. Single ref. Other two refs are his own work. He is a starter journalist. Fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG scope_creep (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Ergin is not a notable journalist. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey J[edit]

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

Highly promotional article on young musician not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, under any of the stage names used or his birth name. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete musician who does not pass any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Remove AFD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:958:8E40:E400:B8DD:E865:5F2A (talk • contribs) — 2602:304:958:8E40:E400:B8DD:E865:5F2A (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Butterscotch Shenanigans[edit]

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

Brand new game studio, with several games. Their article appears an almost complete copy from their company website. scope_creep (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam & borderline A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case for WP:TNT or possibly drafting. I'm seeing a number of returns in the WP:VG/S RS search engine, but per K.e.c., this looks more like spam than a decent article. Either move to draftspace without redirect or delete. --Izno (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if a lot of work is put into it by the VG crowd. L3X1 (talk) 13:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: You should predicate your !vote not on whether work is put into it but whether the topic is notable (see WP:SURMOUNTABLE and especially WP:RUBBISH). --Izno (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it falls more into this paragraph "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion." than the following paragraph. The article needs to reformatted and expanded, the creators and date put into a sidebar, and the games created down in a list below. Whether or not they're notable is a discussion that will last to the end of days. Just IMO.L3X1 (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @L3X1, I don't think that it true, your rationalising it. It is a straight up copy of their website, which means it's a copyright vio issue. scope_creep (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:CV "If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted.". So it rather than delete it should go to the video game people for WP:NUKEANDPAVE as stated above by Izno. Edit, I'm kinda new here, and while I have read the policies, I haven't really seen them being born out. L3X1 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: please read WP:Notability very carefully before you start commenting at AfD, please. ansh 666 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read it. And IMO it passes notability, being the maker of a popular game that has not only won awards but has it's own Wiki page: Crashlands. The part of WP:NOTABILITY that I think it passes is: WP:SUSTAINED, the patroller who marked this AfD would have you believe this company started yesterday, when in fact it's been around since 2012. Crashlands is not their first game, but when it launched in January 2016, it made big news (as is still making news). I think the "Delete" crowd is trying to use WP:ARTN to back their claims, when they are forgetting that if BScotch goes, so should Crashland, except Crashlands is Notable, so so is BScotch. The two being intertwined, so I voted Keep.L3X1 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@L3X1: Notability is not inherited. If one topic is notable, then that does not mean that a closely-related topic is also notable. --Izno (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it has to pass all parts of the guideline, not just a single part. ansh 666 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This seems to fall under WP: Too soon. The attention for Crashlands is helpful, but nowhere near enough to justify an article on the developer by itself, and we can't be sure that they'll eventually achieve notability.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crashlands - not ideal (and that game is borderline as well), but considering that it is a company that exists with a related product, it's probably a reasonable search term. ansh 666 23:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not sure why this was renominated. Clear consensus to keep very recently with multiple international sources provided. No indication this discussion will produce a different outcome. Fenix down (talk) 09:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hashtag United F.C.[edit]

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

Nominated 3 months for concerns about it simply being a local YouTube-active team and no signs for actually satisfying the applicable footballers notability which is how we base these subjects, and even GNG itself as the sources are simply local news stories and announcements. As always, simply because it was considered for keep, it's enough time for improvements, even minimal ones, to be made and none happened. SwisterTwister talk 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear failure of football-related notability, but surprisingly meets GNG based on articles like these (non-local and in-depth): [1][2][3] —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – Meets Wikipedia's General notability guideline per available sources, which are not local; several have national distribution. As such, WP:AUD is also met. See sources below and descriptions of those sources (bold emphasis mine). If a topic meets GNG, whether or not it meets a subject-specific notability guideline (also referred to as secondary notability guidelines) is generally moot.

Also, topic notability is not based upon whether or not articles are improved or not. For additional information regarding this reasoning, see WP:NOEFFORT. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:14, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Telegraph – "The Daily Telegraph, commonly referred to simply as The Telegraph, is a national British daily broadsheet newspaper..."
BBC Sport – "BBC Sport is a department of the BBC North division providing national sports coverage for BBC Television, radio and online."
L'Équipe – "...a French nationwide daily newspaper devoted to sport..."
BBC Mundo – "...part of the BBC World Service's foreign language output...", "... bbcmundo.com had over 8.5 million monthly unique visitors who read its stories...", "The BBC World Service is the world's largest international broadcaster..."

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets GNG. Not sure what's changed since the last comprehensive AFD... Giant Snowman 22:30, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTC-15:56[edit]

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

According to the edit history, article has been nominated for speedy deletion as a hoax, but was declined. Hoax tag currently is on the article. Setting aside that matter, the article appears to fail WP:GNG. Does not appear to be a good candidate for a redirect to another time zone article. Delete as non notable. Safiel (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is not a hoax, since the solar time of Manila was actually Greenwich-15:56 when the Philippines used Mexican date. (Manila is at 121.0°E=GMT+8:04 and GMT-15:56 before 1844). The source timeanddate.com is reliable, but previously the article said that the entire Philippines used this timezone which timeanddate.com didn't claim. So the deletion justification is non-notability because every place used its own time. Actually it would be kind of interesting to keep an article about the westernmost time that ever existed, which is something like UTC-16:01, not UTC-15:56. But it is best to keep that info in Philippine Standard Time.--BIL (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of UTC-15:56 being a "time zone" is what matters to be a hoax. Without telegraph, you can't have standard time. Without railroad, you don't need standard time. History of time (or date) in the Philippines is notable for the International Date Line article. If you want the furthest back solar time, Palawan or even Northern Borneo is where you'll find it, but that will be a lot of research for no justifiable notability. (The Spanish would keep American date. The Portuguese, Dutch or British would keep Asian date. But who cared about the exact hour and minute?) HkCaGu (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zavarella[edit]

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

Google search turns up social media hits rather than third-party information. Tone isn't a reason to delete, but removing the peacock slathering, such as "defining figure in Canadian history", might leave very little. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The one secondary source currently cited in the article doesn't mention Zavarella. All the other sources are primary. No independent sources to support notability, so he clearly fails WP:GNG. The tone issues are not, in itself, a reason to remove the article; however, they suggest that the main contributor might be a related party or otherwise creating the article with the intent of getting Zavarella's name out there. —C.Fred (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill business person. Net worth of $9 Million is not even rich today. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'll restore it upon request if and when more sources become available and somebody decides to work on this. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Rego, Secrets and Stories[edit]

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

No indication of satisfying WP:NB. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My first instinct was that this was probably just too soon. But I see it already has Portuguese RS here. So that's one. She's a major Portuguese painter, now based in London, and it's apparently going to air on the BBC in a matter of weeks, then be followed by a theatrical release in Portugal, during which the ref above will I'm sure be joined by more reviews. Recommend we simply userfy or send to draft space if more reliable sources cannot be found, for now.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without proper independent sources, this is a candidate for speedy as promotional. Once sources exist, then it can be recreated from independent reviews. What is present does not appear worth retaining. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This does seem a little soon, but the Portuguese review is as Shawn in Montreal says already a reliable source, and it makes it clear this is a serious and significant documentary. However it would be sensible to wait for a few more sources, which will certainly come when the film is released in Britain in March. I'd agree therefore that we should userfy or otherwise send back to draft for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete for promotion (the only non promotional part is the release section.) It does sound as if it will be notable, but this page's writing is not what we want. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete the artist is obviously notable, but the documentary is not (no notability by association). Nabla (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tremors (franchise)#Tremors 6 (TBD) . (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tremors 6[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, future films are generally considered too speculative to be notable yet or for an article to be considered to have sufficiently reliable information. Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON and Fails NFILM. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tremors_(franchise)#Tremors_6_.28TBD.29. There hasn't been anything beyond a general announcement - no filming at all at present. The article as it is now is already present in the main franchise article, so this can redirect there until there's enough coverage and filming starts. It's a valid enough search term I suppose, so a redirect would be best here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:58, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tremors (franchise) § Tremors 6 (TBD) for now. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine[edit]

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

Apparently fails WP:NJOURNALs. jps (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's included in the curated database Index Medicus. If the experts at the United States National Library of Medicine think it is important enough for that highly-selective database, I'm not going to second-guess them. --Randykitty (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's also in Scopus and the Science Citation Index Expanded. It's 2015 impact factor is 1.329. I have added this information to the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Its parent company prominently features a quote by Andrew Weil on its homepage and their editor-in-chief is none other than Andrew Campbell. Oh, this is an excellent journal, fershure. They helpfully sponsor the bestest Vaccine Cause Autism conferences around! I'm so glad that indexing proves that this "journal" which gets a whopping 1.3 citations per article (to other vaccine cause autism articles? Who am I to say! I can't look at the paper citations myself, surely!) It's so nice that we have people preserving the stubby articles on pseudoscience journals for us here at Wikipedia even while nobody else in the world pays attention to them. Truly, you are doing the work of God here. jps (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I go by sources. If this journal is a known fringe journal (i.e., there are reliable sources that say so), please add that to the article. If such sources are not available, then on what do you base your assessment that this is a bad journal? Your own evaluation? --Randykitty (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that it seems you aren't able to see that when a editor-in-chief of a medical journal has been sued by his state's medical board that might be something of a WP:REDFLAG when it comes to WP:FRINGE. But why worry about stuff like that when we can just thrust our heads into the sand and pretend like a journal that is essentially never cited outside of its own WP:Walled garden is legitimate? Surely, there's nothing wrong with using an essay that claims that merely being indexed is all that is required to prove notability. Yep, you've convinced me. jps (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but when I look at the source that you give for your assertion that the EIC of this journal is a quack, it seems to me that this is a summons for a hearing, not a judgment or conviction. Even a serial killer is presumed innocent until convicted. Although this is not a biographical article, WP:BLP still applies. Perhaps the guy's a quack. But without evidence you cannot say that. I'll leave it up to you to add a reliable source or to remove that remark. --Randykitty (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just stop reading halfway through or something? "in November 2009, the Board entered a Final Order reprimanding Campbell and suspending his medical license for eight months, after which his practice must be monitored for five years." jps (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FWIW, it looks like the most cited paper in the journal is this one, which has 998 citations on Google Scholar. Everymorning (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah. Fun and games with NCCAM. The center so nice, they can't even decide what it's name is. This joyful paper is cited so much because basically in order to get a center grant, you've got to mention it. Usually you do this by writing the profoundly smart sentence, "Complementary and alternative treatments are increasingly popular in the US [add another cite to the barbie]." Funny how that citation engine doesn't result in much movement on the IF, isn't it? jps (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:NJOURNAL. St Anselm (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with the above assessment from Randykitty. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep*. An encyclopaedia records notable objects existing in the world around - not objects that we want the world to consist of. If an undoubtedly notable journal happens to focus on fringe theories, we should write this in the text, and not censor out the existence of this journal. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete, again the bizarre use of NJournals here by the WP:Journals crew. This fails GNG. There are serious NPOV issues at this article and more broadly with regard to the project's blindered commitment to relying on indexes alone for notability -- you all seem to feel you have some responsibility as "librarians" in WP. Well your NJOURNALS essay is failing you and most importantly it, and your application of it, are failing the community. I am really, really disappointed that long-term WIkipedians are allowing a fringe-spewing journal to have a WP article that cannot characterize the journal due to lack of sources. This is a replay of the brouhaha at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Explore: The Journal of Science & Healing (2nd nomination) and it is mind-blowing to me that the community is having the exact same discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"There are serious NPOV issues at this article" no there aren't, and even if there were deletion is not cleanup / WP:SOFIXIT. ~~But as you've made clear, you're not interested in that, you're only interested in huffing and puffing.~~ Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails GNG. NJournals is an essay and shouldn't override GNG's policy. Valeince (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see also: Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine Shaded0 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a pseudo-journal. It does not pass GNG. QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see why the anti-alternatives crew are claiming that it does not pass GNG. Why are they so threatened by alternatives? Dicklyon (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, see also [4]. At #10, it clearly is an influential journal (which is an entirely different thing that a reliable one). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the Journal of Credulous Bullshit under the editorship of Nostradamus Mesmer Junior were indexed, widely read and widely cited, it would qualify for an article. Cleanup of NPOV language, perceived or otherwise, is a different matter. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes NJOURNALS ,i.e., covered in selective databases and has an impact factor. The appraised medical competence and/or ethics of the editor in chief has been noted, so all bases appear to be covered and sourced. Also, sorry to say, I am not seeing any NPOV issues with this article. It appears neutrally worded to me. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 22:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Care[edit]

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

Per WP:NORG. I consider the attention received attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. Only trivial local sources in article and on web. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added sources from a book collection of Wall Street Journal articles and a major-press Hugh Warwick book, which I hope helps with the notability issue. Ibiza042 (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have also added more information and a reference from "The Independent" to enhance notability, and the Wall Street Journal source gives it international recognition. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on this one. Sourcing is clearly fine - nomination is Withdrawn. Thanks to all for your help addressing these concerns so well. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping us on our toes! Ibiza042 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. THe discussion supports deletion, in addition the article also qualifies for G5 —SpacemanSpiff 14:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parvathy R Krishna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: I don't see if the actress has played any major role in any film or tv show also I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources for a stand-alone article at least not yet. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Se is a wellknown actress and check the tv series . She lead a main role in that. Now the series is running on TV (Shafeekmon (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 08:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Shafeekmon: Can you please explain in which TV serial she has played a lead role? I can't find anything to support her acting career except her name in Rathri Mazha (TV series) which was also added by you without citing a reliable source. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, Please visit http://keralatvworld.blogspot.com/2016/11/watch-rathrimazha-serial-flowers-tv.html here is the caste of the tv series Rathrimazha (Shafeekmon (talk))

check it http://cinetrooth.in/2016/01/18/parvathy-r-krishna-actress-profile-and-biography/ (Shafeekmon (talk))

Check the link, it contains Eshwaran Sakshiyayi serial cast & crew. Please check it http://www.vinodadarshan.com/2015/05/eshwaran-sakshiyayi-serial-on-flowers.html?m=1 (Shafeekmon (talk))

The source you provided above are not reliable. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check it http://www.cochintalkies.com/celebrity/parvathy-r-krishna-photo.html?image_id=64621 (Shafeekmon (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

check http://www.mallumoviereporter.com/2015/12/eswaran-sakshiyayi-climax-episode-on-31.html (Shafeekmon (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 10:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of the article is currently blocked for abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ayyappancs. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's clear advertising motivations here and what the article also shows is unconvincing, altogether enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 20:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.flowersinternational.tv/1370/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.3.131.209 (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Ji Ka Thullu[edit]

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

Though it's cute that this article has lasted as long as it has, it fails our notability criteria for hand gestures, on account of Wikipedia not having notability criteria for hand gestures. There has been no effort to properly establish that this is a mainstream concept that has received widespread attention from independent reliable sources, so our general notability guideline has not been satisfied. Even assuming this was some sort of hand gesture / slang expression combo, I think WP:NEOLOGISM would apply here as this appears to be a semi-recent concept relevant only to a relatively small group of fans of this series. I think someone's trying to make "fetch" happen. I notice that I don't see any article on the Fonz's "Sit on it" or Hannibal's "I love it when a plan comes together." and those catch phrases had long lasting social impact.

At best, this Babaji Ka Thullu thing would be a sentence or two at Comedy Nights with Kapil, but even that's debatable. I thought about merging the content to the main article but couldn't bring myself to do it, on account of how bizarre it would be to have a section devoted solely to a single hand gesture/catch phrase. If someone else feels comfortable doing this, then I'll yield on deletion. Otherwise, I feel that if it's bizarre to have a section in an article devoted to this, it's even more bizarre to have an entire article dedicated to it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - slang term and gesture with a very limited appeal - Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG; certainly not enough for a stand-alone article anyway Spiderone 21:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Should probably be a one line mention in Kapil Sharma (comedian), not an entire article. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination. SM7^--talk-- 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yaesu FT-60[edit]

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

I am nominating this page for deletion because I don't think the subject is really very notable. The page just reads a bit like a product brochure and adds little of historical value, even for ham radio enthusiasts (a minority of the population themselves). I noticed this page a couple of days ago, but then also today the deletion of the Yaesu FT-990 page (Mikeblas—Mark_viking—Eggishorn) - this page seems in the exact same category. I think this is only the second time I've nominated a page for deletion, so I hope I've done everything right. Stroller (talk) 16:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a good nomination to me. Like the other recently-deleted articles, there is no source that establishes notability beyond mere existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable product. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per WP:NCYC. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Veronika Sharametsyeva[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. personal details not covered by source given but more likely from another source. Unreliable. The Banner talk 15:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can verify every fact in that article from the sources given. The subject passes the subject notability guideline for cyclists at WP:NSPORT. Tazerdadog (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCYC for women (2:competed at the Olympics or UCI World Championships or UCI World Cup), having rode at the 2005 UCI Road World Championships. All details are verfied and I've added another ref for her DOB. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep meets WP:NCYC. Hmlarson (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rider at the WC. Kante4 (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The article now reads as a WP:ONEEVENT-case. But I have no problem when somebody wants to have it userfied to be able to improve it. By the way, this article is part of User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up. The Banner talk 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, for all the biographies you nominated last months you should have done WP:BEFORE. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 17:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you really did not get the message that most of your articles will be mass deleted soon because of sourcing and other BLP-issues, don't you? But when you fail to write proper articles, why should I improve them? You are the author and your work is/was sloppy. Improve your own work instead of pointing to others as the culprits. The Banner talk 22:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - So that's another reason you didn't have to put this article for AfD. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 14:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I should not put this article to AfD because you fail to write proper articles? Ow, goodie... The Banner talk 21:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Thats not what I said. Like you were told many, many times read WP:BEFORE before nominating. Like for instance "The minimum search expected" and "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern." Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Like you were told many times before: do not blame others for your own sloppy work. You should have looked for more sources before writing the article. Not complaining afterwards when it breaches the BLP-rules. The Banner talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets WP:NCYC twice ( 1: competed at World Championships, 2: rode for an UCI women's team). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD A7. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Foundation (India)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable organization, and a search for coverage in reliable sources came up empty except for a few false positives. I would have nominated this for A7 but the article has references. The article claimed that the World Federation of Islamic Missions is its parent organization but I can't seem to find any evidence confirming this; if this is confirmed, a redirect to WFIM's article is possible but given the disambiguation I'm not sure the article title would be a plausible search term. Also I see a possible contradiction: the company given in the Authority Control links mention books published in the 20th century even though according to the article the organization was only founded in 2016. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete unnotable: the only reference is spurious and does not mention the organisation. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources available Spiderone 21:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ark-La-Tex[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Not listed as a geographic area on GNIS. While several commercial enterprises are called "Ark-La-Tex", I was unable to find any secondary sources which describe this as a unique geographic region. This source describes it as a "widely used local shorthand for the intersection of Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas". Hardly deserving of a Wikipedia article. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator.

Keep. The first AfD correctly closed as a speedy keep because, as was demonstrated at length there, this has become a widely-used term for the cultural and economic region. Its boundaries are elastic but its existence and characteristics are widely discussed. As the find sources links above show, GNews has 28,000 hits, not surprising since the media in the region all use the term. So do more academically inclined works. GScholar produces more than 500 works including works on geology, biology, and agriculture. A University Press of Mississippi book analyzes the area's music culture [5]; a TCU Press book tells us, "The Arklatex is a world in itself while still remaining a part of the four states that comprise it" [6]. Easily passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as created by a block-evading editor. (CSD G5) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gallucci[edit]

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

Non-notable actor WP:TOOSOON WP:NotJustYet,In my opinion it does not pass WP:ACTOR. FITINDIA (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per G5, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TBoz2011. GAB^gab 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Green Completions[edit]

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

Written like an essay/personal research complete with non-neutral tone (particularly: Arguably the most important benefit from green completions is the positive environmental impact. No flaring and venting practically eliminate emissions during the completions process in natural gas wells. This not only improves the image of our industry, but also provides sustainable operations for future development of our industry.) It also seems to be copy and pasted from somewhere, though I can't find the source.

The topic itself is probably notable or encyclopedic enough but as the article stands now, it needs to be blown up and rewritten. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree regarding notability being (just about!) there, but yes WP:BLOWITUP is a good description of what needs to happen here to get it into an encyclopedic state! Mike1901 (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly, delete and have a fresh go. Seems like a notable topic, but the current language requires complete gutting of the caboose here - I don't think a reworking of present text will be enough.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. —SpacemanSpiff 14:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AAO Hostels[edit]

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

Prod removed by IP - Non-notable Hostel group, bordering on promo. All the 'sources' provided are mentions that they were one of x amount of tech startups chosen by the government to encourage tourism (with funding) which doesn't really establish notability. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 11:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant advertising created by a single purpose editor. LibStar (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete - Not notable. The sources provided are not really about this hostel, but rather about a contest held by the Karnataka government. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete New startup, only here to promote. Insignificant at this moment. let it become something. Wiki has no time limit to publish articles. Light2021 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely a year old, this is too soon and too common. I have stayed in dozens of hostels between 1988 and 2012, but not recently and not in India. FWIW, I used to volunteer for American Youth Hostels as a trip leader and local council leader. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless remote-control switch[edit]

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

Article has been around since 2012 and has never reached adequate quality. The subject appears too broad to reach encyclopedic status: there are simply too many unrelated forms of remote control switches to cover them all in this article, and specific remote controls are covered elsewhere like remote control. Not worth merging as there is not a lot of content here. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT. Maybe someone will write this article one day, but when they do, this isn't going to be of any help. TimothyJosephWood 18:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Remote control. The article this is intending to be is already written, and it's immeasurably better. No harm in a redirect in case it help someone find the real article. I'm not sure why the nom thinks this article is somehow different from remote control. MB 02:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real reason to redirect, since search would turn up the same article. Somewhat redundant title, since "remote" is almost always wireless anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi local elections Results[edit]

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

Appears to be local election results - as far as I am aware they are not notable enough to be included in this Wikipedia. Nördic Nightfury 08:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 08:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This obviously needs some work, but we have extensive coverage of local elections on Wikipedia. See e.g. the contents of Category:English local elections, 2016. Deleting this would suggest systematic bias. Number 5 7 10:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rameezraja001 (talk) 11:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ why is Karachi being singled out for making page for its local elections??, each and every country is allowed to have its local election page Category:Local and municipal elections Rameezraja001 (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vote stricken - duplicate Nördic Nightfury 20:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saige Thompson[edit]

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

Hopefully, our notability requirements are higher than they were in 2007–08 when this was last sent to AfD. Subject is a pretty clear WP:NACTOR fail (only one, at most two, "significant' roles, one on a very short-lived TV series, and the other a rather minor ABC Family miniseries, respectively). Also, WP:GNG fail – no significant (only passing) mentions in the usual trade places (e.g. just passing mentions at Variety and THR, no mentions in Entertainment Weekly at all). Does not pass our notability threshold – minor actors do not merit articles here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant roles to meet the notability requirements for actors. Last time people argued a significant role was enough to pass, but our guidelines require "multiple" significant roles, and she does not have that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- falls short of notability requirements and close to A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Servpro[edit]

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

Non-notable company that fails to meet WP:CORP. I've searched for the company name and "Isaacson", the founders surname and turned up zero in-depth, independent coverage. SmartSE (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It consists of small business franchises. Does adverts on tv. I found mentions on CNBC, CNN, & WSJ, but nothing in-depth. CNN Money mentions it. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work, but this is a significant franchise. I was surprised to see the article nominated for deletion. I found 11,200 news articles by searching news.google.com. Jacknstock (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jacknstock: WP:GHITS - do any of those thousands of links provide any substantial coverage of the company as opposed to small mentions in passing? The reason I noted the founders surname in the nom, is that a decent source would contain information about the founder. SmartSE (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many of them are articles about specific locations/franchisees, but that's what you expect with franchise organizations. Servpro is everywhere in the USA. Is there any other organization with 1,700 franchises that doesn't have a Wikipedia article? Jacknstock (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a few details and inserted references. I hope that helps. Jacknstock (talk) 04:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hinduja Global Solutions. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HGS Interactive[edit]

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

Non notable unit in itself. Specific coverage is mostly press releases, not independent coverage. Notability can not inherited from parent group. ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Hinduja Global Solutions, though that is itself a poorly sourced article. As to this article, speedy deletion tags were removed twice by the article creator, the second time without being replaced. The sources are poor: an article by someone associated with the company and a routine announcement. Nor are my searches identifying anything better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Only notability it has because its a part of Group. Tons of other companies are there with less encyclopedia significance. Light2021 (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Battlestar Galactica objects[edit]

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

Unsourced original research WP:fancruft list that will not interest anybody other than the tiniest minority of fans (if there's any remaining). Editors needs to be reminded that this is Wikipedia, not BSG Wiki Cylon B (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as frakingly awful fancruft. It's just a small, random selection of objects, and one of them (CBDR) isn't even that. Instrumentation? Instrumentation!?! Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No valid reason for deletion articulated; no reason this couldn't be sourced and/or cleaned up. It's a list, not a specific object, so notability is that much easier to demonstrate. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, do you see this list any use to anybody other than the tiniest minority of hardcore fans. Cleanup? You mean purge this list about TV series plot devices? Don't tell me you're going to use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Cylon B (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced how? Nobody is discussing these things in depth. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced hubris. None of the items have any reliable sourcing nor does it indicate any notability. Karst (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just a whole lot of fancruft and original research on a bunch of extremely minor fictional objects. No sources, and based on the results of some searches, none are forthcoming. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

By following the 'books' link in any of the five elements I've pulled from the list, you can see that each has multiple, independent reliable sources--contra all of the opinions posted above. There's certainly room for sourcing and editing (yes, Instrumentation and CBDR are truly stupid entries), but the list is an alternative to small articles on each of these other topics, which individually meet the WP:GNG, and thus the list does. Jclemens (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the problem isn't whether there are sources about each, but whether there are sources for the group. There are sources which treat the characters, episodes, etc. as a group, but are there sources about the "objects" in the series (not individual objects)? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. We have a broad but sound consensus that these articles are not suitable for inclusion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine at the 2013 European Road Championships[edit]

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

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [7], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Ukraine at the European Road Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment at least some articles (I did a small sample) are not tagged pointing to this discussion. I ask @Sportsfan 1234: to tag them, and ask to pace their nominations for deletion which are counting up from a thousand in a week or so. I also ask admins assessing this discussion to count the 7 day discussion period starting only after all articles are tagged. Nabla (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All articles in this discussion have been tagged now. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

1) The nominator says events that are borderline notable themselves, well the event meets WP:NCYC

2) As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at the 2014 European Athletics Championships.

3) THe nominator says Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. But the same kind of series are made for the Category:Nations at the European Athletics Championships and Category:Nations at the World Championships in Athletics. These events have the same notability standard.

4) These kind of pages pages of the World Champinships that are listed for deletion for the same reasons where discussed at the Cycling Wikiproject, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling/Archive 12#Country pages for the UCI Road World championships. Lugnuts, XyZAn and Buzzards-Watch Me Work joined the discussion and nobody was against.

or Renaming: It might be better to rename all such pages into like 2013 in Dutch road cycling, 2015 in Ukrainian road cycling etc.. So it would became a merge including Ukraine at the 2013 European Road Championships and Ukraine at the 2013 UCI Road World Championships. (Note that merging into the national pages is difficult as there are already pages named Ukraine at the European Road Championships, France at the European Road Championships and Italy at the European Road Championships etc. not taking part in this AfD )

Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 13:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per GregorB, standardise to [Country] at [Competition], this is also something I brought up at WT:CYC XyZAn (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just like the other related AfDs. Statistics that no-one will ever look at in their current state. Laurdecl ^talk 09:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per GergorB.
Delete as WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of trivia information that does not meet sufficient notability guidelines. There's really no need for all these articles, the information is just reposting data from a single website to WP with no context provided. FuriouslySerene (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das Argument[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG Umair Aj (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: indexed in Scopus, perhaps also elsewhere (no time right now to check other selective databases). Rather bad article, needs cleanup/expansion per WP:JWG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Randykitty. St Anselm (talk) 19:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RK. See also Scopus, IBZ Online, Periodicals Index Online , MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Philosopher's Index. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smoke weed every day[edit]

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

No sources or notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC TheMagikCow (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete fails notability, we don't have articles for single lines of songs. All of the edits by The Dank Master would suggest WP:NOTHERE. KylieTastic (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Next Episode - It is a notable line from the song, but it is not notable enough for a seperate article. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This article is bordering on being a joke. Single lines are somewhat common for films ("Go ahead, make my day") but hardly ever for songs. It fails GNG regardless and if there is anything useful to add (which I do not see) it can be merged or perhaps redirected if it is a common lyric of the song.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MattyBRaps[edit]

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

Completing malformed nomination by IP 219.90.106.167. Rationale copied from talk page: This kid is not notable. There are not substantial sources to justify an article. Having made it on BB's Social 50 for one week when he was 9 doesn't indicate notability now. Redirect to MattyB with the "not to be confused" tag at that page in place. I have no opinion, other than that the proposed redirect is probably not the best solution (also noting that MattyB redirects here and not to Matty B, which is what the IP meant to link to). ansh 666 09:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - plenty of sources, and a notable person. Seems like a bad faith nomination to me. Patient Zero^talk 18:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have doubts whether the "Social 50" meets what NMUSIC considers "charting." GNG is so low a bar, embarrassing articles like this convince me we need stricter criteria, especially for BLPs. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep – The subject has received ongoing significant coverage in reliable sources; qualifies for an article per meeting WP:BASIC. Some source examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (select "mehr..." on page to view all). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Industrie Clothing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company not notable and not covered well in sources it seems. Previous AfD ended with no consensus. Clothing company with limited history, tagged with multiple issues since as easy as 2013. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant corporate spam on an unremarkable business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anything to demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:58, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Stress Response: Evolution and Implications[edit]

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

This is a student essay, not an encyclopedia article, and the topic is already covered by Fight-or-flight response. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Excellent image there at Fight-or-flight response, BTW :) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some reading of WP:STAS is needed by the article creator's teacher, but Cordless Larry is right. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested; per WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Gunewardene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. The individual is an officer holder at a notable company however that does not make him notable WP:INHERITORG. There is no evidence that he has personally made any significant achievements. It would appear that the article has only been created as a result of his relationship with his notable sister WP:NOTINHERITED. When the article was previously considered for deletion - supporters argued that being a chairman of a notable company automatically meant the individual was notable. I believe that the individual has to be notable in his own right based on notable achievements - not simply mentions in passing as a spokesman for the company or organisation. Dan arndt (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Binary lambda calculus[edit]

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

Lacks notability. One independent paper has been written about it, but has not been published in a reliable source so that doesn't count. An award has been given for an implementation of it, but the judges' remarks were one line long and therefore I believe this must be considered an incidental reference to the subject matter, so that also doesn't count. greenrd (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --greenrd (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is basically the same article as Binary combinatory logicc. They are both largely written by one John Tromp. The external reference are to home pages by the author and to an article by Gregory Chaitin. The Binary combinatory logic article cites one other, respectable source. These pages are original research by the author. Perhaps they deserve to be published somewhere, but they haven't been. Pierre Lescanne, a quite respectable computer scientist, together with Katarzyna Grygiel, wrote a paper on a combinatorial problem that occurred to him while reading these pages, and published it on the arXiv. However, both of these articles should be removed from WP because: 1. they are original research by the author of the pages, 2. neither the results nor the author seem in any way notable. If we leave these articles in, we give license to anyone who writes a paper, to make that paper a WP article. WP is not supposed to be a place to publish your own research. You'd have one WP page for any paper, published or not, that anyone wrote. It does not become notable if, among the hundreds of math articles published, one other article, and that a not particularly distinguished one, refers to it.--Toploftical (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding this relevant link to the discussion. It contains remarks by other editors who previously discussed the notability of this article. See

Why this article should be deleted

--Toploftical (talk) 14:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Greenrd and Toploftical. —Ruud 17:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Among comments that actually cite policy (or guidelines), consensus is strongly for deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Subramani[edit]

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

Biography of nn person. It has been repeatedly created by socks of a blocked (paid) editor, see the article logs, but it is just possible that the most recent creator is not in fact a sockpuppet. In any case, the article's subject is clearly not notable; the current sources are one borderline RS, in the shape of a Deccan Chronicle interview, and the rest is all primary, including two copies of the same press release in different papers. No sources found in a WP:BEFORE search, and there is in fact no credible assertion of notability in the article - being an assistant director does not automatically confer notability. bonadea contributions talk 22:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable Film Director does not pass WP:DIRECTOR. FITINDIA (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are enough to show the person's credibility. Wikipedia, is an encyclopaedia, which should acknowledge all kinds of artists whether actors, actresses, producers or directors. He does have some really big Bollywood movies to his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.162.199 (talk) 16:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example please? Spiderone 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does acknowledge all kinds of artists, provided they meet our notability criteria. Unless you're prepared to explain how the subject specifically meets our notability criteria, your vote will carry little weight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He has worked as a producer in television serial Love Story, worked as an assistant director on films like Murder, Tumsa Nahi Dekha, Zeher, and as a chief assistant director in films such as Gangster, Life in a Metro, Kites, Barfi and Jagga Jasoos. All these have a Wikipedia pages, I don't know why the person who created the page hasn't tagged these big movies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.162.128 (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant directors aren't inherently notable. Neither is a second unit cinematographer. That's not to say that they don't work hard, only that they don't really shape the artistic work in the same way that a primary director or a main cinematographer does. That's why they don't get the same attention from academics. If pressed, I doubt anyone could name a famous American assistant director. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only appears to have directed one notable film; no evidence of WP:GNG either Spiderone 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the creator of this page, and this is the first page I tried as a part of my college project (we were told to create a Wikipedia page of person from film industry, who is notable and does have have a Wikipedia pags to his name. After a lot of research I zeroed on Mr. Sunil Subramani.) According to me, being a chief assistant director, prpducer and assistant director in such huge, big-budget and successful Bollywood films is no cakewalk. Please do consider his work before deciding to delete the page. I'm sure you will help me in successfully creating my first Wikipedia page. Have heard a lot about the great Wikipedia community and how they help each other. Also, I read the comment about linking the movies Wikipedia pages in Sunil subramani's Wikipedia page, please can someone help me how to do that. Please excuse me for my bad grammar in the article and here as English isn't my language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerasingh100 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Though I understand the pressure of having to come up with an article subject as part of a college project, coupled with your lack of familiarity with Wikipedia processes, whether or not a person works hard is not the threshold requirement for a Wikipedia article to exist. My uncle Octavius works 14 hour days in a sewer, but nobody's gonna write an article about him. Really, I think your teacher should be apprised of Wikipedia's notability criteria so they're not ignorantly encouraging hapless students to create articles that are just going to wind up deleted. That's going to be very disheartening for students. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above creator of this page is very enterprising for a new editor he has read enough to know that a speedy must not be removed by the creator some how only IP's with only one edit which was to remove the speedy tag [13] here [14], [15] and here [16] I guess it must be a collage project with all the students trying to save the page including the keep vote from a IP again.FITINDIA (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to being THE DIRECTOR of the Bollywood movie Fuddu(which also has a Wikipedia page by the way), this person has a long and notable journey in the hindi film Industry as a writer and director of a short film, a producer of a television serial Love Story, and a cheif assistanr and assisant director in various big hindi movies. In my opinon, his work is notable enoigh to provide him a place in the World's largest ENCYCLOPAEDIA, Wikipedia. Also, I think, despite of having credible enough cottages and sources, the main problem here is that a person namef some Amitabh from Artists Branding attempted making this page a long back and this user Meera was considered a sock puppet of the same, but an investigation by an established Wikipedia editor has denied any relationship between the two. So, I think, the page should let it be. It should stay and one person's work should affect other person who isn't related to that person whatsover. Please head to the page's talk page to see the same. I actually studied the entire case and came to this conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.219.60.95 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But there aren't any "credible enough" sources, that's part of the problem. (There is one interview, which is a weak source but at least it's secondary - the rest are all primary sources and as such don't count at all towards a person's notability.) And again, yes he has been an assistant director but that does not confer notability. Working on a notable film does not automatically make you notable - the same thing applies to actors with minor roles in major movies, for instance. Since there has been a lot of problematic editing from the promotion company that originally created the article (repeatedly and using several different accounts), and since that company has been sneaking other promotional articles about non-notable people into the encyclopedia very recently, it is important that this article is given a close scrutiny, and that anybody arguing in favour of a "keep" in fact bases their arguments on Wikipedia policies. Which part of WP:DIRECTOR would you argue is met? I don't see that he meets any of the criteria. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Interviews are typically considered WP:PRIMARY, no?[17] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyphoidbomb: You are right of course. I must have been mixing "primary" and "self-published" up in the dark morass of my brain and thinking that since the interview was published in a newspaper, at least it wasn't self-published. (And that is why a Swede should not be editing before she's had her coffee ;-) ) Thanks for the catch! --bonadea contributions talk 16:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Refer to the talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sunil_Subramani) where a Wikipedia administrator named Cyphoidbomb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cyphoidbomb) included the article within the scope of WikiProject India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.182.26 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikiproject template has no bearing on whether the person is notable or not, and adding such a template is not an endorsement of notability. I'm not going to second-guess Cyphoidbomb's opinions, but I promise you that they know that the deletion discussion takes place here and not on the article talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is, that a Wikipedia administrator had only already approved the page when it was tagged for a speedy deletion,, then why do others keep tagging it for deletion. If this would be the case, then a person has to keep checking their page to make aure it sticks. I don't understand this. This is not how it should work, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.160.247 (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No administrator "approved" the page. I merely added WikiProjects to the talk page. This has nothing to do with approval. It's basic categorization. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The closing admin might want to consider the number of IP addresses with very few previous edits, from two ranges belonging to the same ISP, as well as the editing activity in the article itself, with many IPs from these ranges removing the AfD template with curious and similar rationales (such as the Wikiproject template on the talk page). Might just be a group of college kids working together, of course, using the same non-college IPs. --bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's obvious collusion here. 106.215.*, 106.219.*, 223.176.* Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to being a director, chief assistant director, supervising producer and an assistant director, Sunil has also written and directed two short films Sarahana and Make it Large story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.167.133 (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC) — 223.176.167.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Short films are not inherently notable. Anybody with a YouTube channel can produce and distribute a short film. Further, we don't decide these discussions by voting. The comments need to address existing guidelines, such as whether WP:NDIRECTOR or WP:GNG has been satisfied. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphoidbomb, that is exactly what I'm saying. The point being made by my friend in the above vote is that he has written and directed two critically acclaimed short films in addition to being a director of a Bollywood movie, Fuddu, and a supervising producer for a very popular television show, and a chief assistant director and assistant director on big Hindi movies like Barfi, Murder and Zeher. Surely, I understand your point that two short movie don't show notability but they do add up in a person's credentials. He has done good work so far both in Indian and Television industry and being Indian Journalism students, ww decided to dedicate a Wikipedia page for it. We even followed all the norms and gave proper sources bearing popular Indian publications like the Times of India, Deccan Chronicle etc. In order to show the notability of the movies and television shows he has worked on, we even provided the links for the same. We are hopeful that the closing admin will consider our views and Sunil Sir's before taking their decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.173.44 (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you know what "Sunil Sir's [views]" are? --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonadea, I never said Sunil sir's VIEWS! I missed out the word contributions, what I meant was Sunil Sir's contributions; so let's not conjecture and question people's intention for no reason. All I was doing was keeping my views forward. I don't know Sunil sir's view nor do I know him or have even met him. I'm just a person giving a notable personality in the film industry respect for his work. I'm just 22, so doing equate me saying SIR to anything. This is the way I address elder people in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.176.161.55 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though I don't understand the technical terms that Wikipedia uses, I do understand that the issue here is predominantly about notability of the person involved. From what I have read, the person looks notable enough. He has explored a lot of Profiles and gained success in them. Hs has worked as a director, writer, supervising producer, chief-assistant director and assistant director in some of the biggest Bollywood movies of last decade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajni Sharma (talk • contribs) 12:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Rajni Sharma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See also [18] and [19], with the post above being first added and then removed by different IPs in two of the relevant ranges. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To address the comment in the post, this is the same argument that has been shown repeatedly in the discussion above to be irrelevant to notability, especially as there are exactly zero secondary sources in the article. If he were notable, he would have been noted - Wikipedia's definition of notability is based on that. --bonadea contributions talk 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rajni Sharma's comment is akin to "The subject has worked hard in Indian entertainment, and even though I have no idea what Wikipedia considers notable, I think the person is notable." The issue here isn't whether or not you think they're notable, the issue is whether or not they meet Wikipedia's community standards for notability. If you don't bother to address that, your vote holds no weight. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just gave my honest opinion and my honest vote. Also, when I'm not nosing in on your opinions and vote, how can you do that on mine? I had previously posted without logging in, when I realised that, I deleted it and posted the exact same words again. I'm entitled to my opinion, you are to yours. Also, being an Indian films aficionado, my vote is to keep the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.215.172.242 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you responding to? It's not necessary (and it's actually quite distracting) to respond with bolded Comment every time you reply. If you're responding to a specific point, indent with colons like the other indented responses, please. Typically editors might use a bolded Comment if they're making a statement that is unrelated to specific points made by others. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient agreement on the quality of sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humanity & Society[edit]

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

Has been tagged for notability for 2 years without improvement. Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NJOURNAL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No longer tagged for notability. Does pass WP:NJOURNAL. Perhaps you could re-assess? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Having checked sources for WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNAL, I agree that there is nothing to indicate that it meets either. It doesn't appear anywhere other than Google Scholar, and even there it's only been cited a handful of times. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NJournals and GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 11:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Worldcat shows holdings in 879 libraries, which indicates that the journal passes WP:NJOURNALS, #2. St Anselm (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is indexed in [20] Periodicals Index Online, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Gender Studies Database, Public Affairs Index, International Political Science Abstracts, MLA - Modern Language Association Database, Political Science Complete, Social services abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. I'm not familiar with any of those databases, however. Pinging DGG (talk · contribs) for input.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reading of what meets WP:NJOURNALS appears to be very broadly construed. Essentially, I see this as a WP:OSE issue. There are hundreds of thousands of journals around, but "inherent notability" is dubious: i.e., I could create an article for The Dostoevsky Journal, but does it mean that the article should remain? I'm sorry, but WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that an encyclopaedic resource is not a collection of everything because someone started an article on it, but no further information aside from evidence that it exists can be found numerous years later. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna, of course there are thousands of journals, but the "Dostoevsky Journal" you chose as an example is exactly the kind of journal not likely to qualify for a Wikipedia article, whereas the Humanity & Society journal qualifies. Comparing the two, you'll note that H&S shows holdings in 879 libraries (comparable to many other popular mainstream journals), while Dostoevsky Journal appears in only 1 library. H&S appears in Google scholar thousands of times, while Dostoevsky journal appears there fewer than 200 times. H&S has been around more than four decades and is referenced in more than a dozen Wikipedia articles, while Dosroevsky Journal has only been around since 2000 and is referenced only once. I agree 100% with you that there are many journals, like "Dostoevsky Journal", which do not qualify for a Wikipedia article, but I disagree that "Humanity & Society" is one of those journals. The comparison is apples to ~~oranges~~ orangutans. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant journal, in the standard indexes for the subject. Reasonably decent publisher for this area. What might look like high library holdings, but unfortunately, we can no longer use library holdings as even a guideline, because journals like this are normally purchased as pat of a package from the publisher, and many libraries list them regardless of whether or not they have any local interest. DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 4 January 2017 (UTC)v[reply]
Keep. As noted above, the 4-decade old Humanity & Society is a significant enough journal. It maintains a reasonable presence in academic indices, Google Scholar, libraries, and many of its publications are well-cited. Journals review and publish the works of others, so any additional "notability" generated will likely be around the authors and the scholarship they produce, not the journal itself which is merely a vehicle. Likely for this reason, there is not a lot of third-party coverage of the journal, but it does meet Wikipedia's requirements as a reliable source. And the lead of WP:NJOURNAL does say: If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A clarification here, that sentence means the journal can be used as a source that's good enough to create a stub with basic information in it. Not that a reliable journal is necessarily considered notable,or ought to have such a stub. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A further clarification here, that sentence is prefaced by a sentence which I failed to quote, which gives more context: Every topic on Wikipedia must be one for which sources exist; however, most journals nowadays have home pages which may be used as sources for uncontroversial information. If the journal can be considered a reliable source, this will be often be sufficient to create a stub on a particular journal, even in the absence of other sources. Note the juxtaposition set up by the word "however", between our usual requirement that topics on Wikipedia must be covered in independent sources (see WP:NOTABILITY), and the exception to that rule made for journals, which allows us to create Wikipedia articles for journals in the absence of third-party sourced coverage. You say that wording doesn't mean "that a reliable journal is necessarily considered notable, or ought to have such a stub", but it does indeed mean that an article (i.e.; a "stub") can indeed be created for it despite the lack coverage in independent sources required for other article topics (see WP:GNG). If that wording was not intended to allow such an exception to WP:GNG for academic journals, then the wording needs some serious updating. The present wording tells Wikipedia editors that they can't create a new article unless the subject is covered by independent sources, unless that subject is an academic journal, in which case the article can be created solely from information obtained from itself even in the absence of other sources.

On a related note, I'm watching with interest the current discussions on the WP:NJOURNAL Talk page. Some of the proposals sound like they may directly affect this and other journal articles if they are implemented. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article under discussion (Humanity & Society) has been modified since this discussion began. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being published by Sage Publications, peer reviewed & qualifying as a reliable source. The article has been significantly improved since the nomination: diff through the efforts of Xenophrenic and others. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I beg to differ. Did you look at the "references" that have been added? Some don't even mention the journal, the rest just in-passing. That they are published by SAGE is not relevant (WP:NOTINHERITED) either. --Randykitty (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Perhaps it would be more useful if you identify exactly what content about the journal has been cited to exactly what "reference" that doesn't "even mention the journal". Then after you fail to identify one for us, perhaps you could strike your comment? I've checked the references, and all content about the journal is cited to references which more than mentions the journal. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to go with delete on this, haven't seen evidence these databases are selective, and the sources added don't cover the journal in depth. WP:INHERITED for the claims it's published by SAGE, and therefore notable (it is NOT). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions: Do you consider databases like EBSCO Information Services' Political Science Complete non-selective? Do you consider coverage such as that on pages 52-59 in this source not in depth? Maybe I just find it difficult to imagine what "in depth" coverage of a journal might look like ... analysis of the font sizes they use? Quality of paper and ink? Journals do the in depth coverage, they don't usually get in depth coverage. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: EBSCO databases are indeed not considered selective. The book chapter you link to is written by Chet Ballard, former president of the Association for Humanist Sociology, so this is not an independent source. An yes, unfortunately, precious few journals get in-depth independent coverage. This seems to be one of those that don't get it. --Randykitty (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In plain language, WP:COMMONSENSE dictates that Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. The fact of the existence of the journal does not mean that an entry for it is either necessary or desirable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dalck Feith[edit]

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

Feith was a low-level local businesman. This is just not the level of prominence to justify having an encyclopedia article on someone. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. His main claim to fame is his son, Douglas J. Feith. Yoninah (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak arguments on both sides of the debate and no discernible consensus after several weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd W. Bailey[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. Faithless electors aren't inherently notable. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E apply. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Bailey's actions had historical significance, and he was, and still is, widely covered by reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:20, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is largely in passing and not about Bailey himself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent coverage of Bailey, in relation to this year's faithless electors was largely in passing. However, in 1968, there were articles for which his actions were the primary subject, and which discussed Bailey himself, as seen here. Bailey's actions even prompted action in congress to disqualify his vote[21], though this was unsuccessful, as well as other efforts to reform the electoral process.[22]--Tdl1060 (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "Coverage in passing" applies to what guideline or policy or essay? Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As per WP:BEFORE D1, "The minimum search expected" includes Google Books. In addition to the following, the first page there has a source from the Congressional Record. These quotes are from the snippets:

CQ Press, Guide to Congress 2012 states, "...the vote cast by a North Carolina elector, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey of Rocky Mount, who had been elected as a Republican but chose to vote for Wallace and Curtis E. LeMay instead of for Nixon and Agnew."
Edwards, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America: Second Edition states, "As mentioned earlier, in 1968, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, Republican of North Carolina, declined to abide by his pledge to support his party's nominee, Richard Nixon. A member of the ultraconservative John Birch Society, Bailey decided that he..."
Moore, Elections A-Z 2013 states, "In 1968 Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, a Nixon elector in North Carolina, voted for George C. Wallace..."
Schulman, Student's Guide to Elections 2008 states, "In 1968, Dr. Lloyd W. Bailey, a Nixon elector in North Carolina, voted for George C. Wallace, the American Independent Party candidate.

More results are available using "Lloyd Bailey". From the Spartanburg Herald Journal, 18 December 2000, I found,

N.C. man was thrust into national spotlight as an elector in 1968.

Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing is available in WP:BEFORE D1 to satisfy WP:GNG. WP:NOTNEWS was deprecated years ago in favor of the term WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Discussion of a page move, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT is for discussion on the talk page. Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing at all here for WP:POLITICIAN since he was not a major politician and the only claims here are for being working with a politician and and in a politician campaign, hence not automatically inherited notability. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google's definition for politician is, "a person who is professionally involved in politics, especially as a holder of or a candidate for an elected office." From the Spartanburg, SC article, "As a North Carolina Republican elector in 1968, the Rocky Mount ophthalmologist cast a vote that propelled him into the public spotlight, earning him national media attention and leading him to testify before Congress." The topic was still active in the John Birch Society as of 2008.
The topic isn't a politician, so there is no surprise that there is "nothing at all here for WP:POLITICIAN". He wasn't a politician, so there is no surprise that "he was not a major politician". As for the argument that the "only claims here are for being working with a politician and and in a politician campaign", this argument is myopic. Unscintillating (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google scholar also has good hits. Here is the 2nd:

Haberfield, Problem of the Faithless Elector, The, 1968–69, Harv. J. on Legis., "...Bailey thereby added another footnote to history...Dr. Bailey defended his defection, in part, on the ground that Wallace had received a majority of the votes of the Second Congressional District..."

Unscintillating (talk) 12:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Interesting article, seems like something I should have known. Jacknstock (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not enough in-depth coverage to show that other than the single event, he passes WP:GNG. Any interesting tidbits could be included at Faithless elector#1968 to 1996. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 08:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Carson[edit]

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

Being Miss Florida is not enough to pass notability guidelines for biographies, and the article clearly fails the general notability guidelines. Neither of the links in the article currently go to any content on Carson. I was able to dig up an article in the local St. Petersberg Times on her, which mainly existed because as the winner of Miss Largo before winning Miss Florida she was local to St. Petersberg. It is not enough on its own to justify having an article on her, and it is the only source I could find that mentioned her beyond fact checking she was Miss Florida at one point. Even by the standards of articles on state winners of beauty pageants this is an extremely weak one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added sources showing her selection to Miss Largo, serving a title reign as Miss Florida and competing for Miss America. Trackinfo (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue This is not a problem that needs the attention of AfD, as merge is an alternative to deletion, and the article has been improved since nomination, so the nomination should be withdrawn. I read the entire edit history without seeing any concerns about notability, and there is no discussion on the talk page of the article. It has been the common practice of the authors of Beauty Pageant articles to present the winners in standalone articles, and this common practice does not create a "gotcha" argument for deletion, which damages the encyclopedia in its coverage of beauty pageant winners and discourages content contributors from contributing to beauty pageant articles. WP:IGNORINGATD is applicable, as WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT are policies. Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- winning Miss Largo does not add to subject's notability; the article is still essentially A7 material. Here's the article in its entirety:

Delete as the 1 Keep vote simply states sourcing exists which is not a policy and what is in fact policy is WP:NOT because we're not a listing or webhost which is why there's nothing else here but the simplest "participation" information. There's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else and there's no exceptions for someone who merely participated. Also the other comment above simply asserts "AfD is not the place for this" but it in fact is, since questionable articles are taken to AfD hence why we're here. Next, the fact no one has actually showed how she's independently notable for her own substantial article, and enough time has come where someone would've shown for it. SwisterTwister talk 03:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fia Tootoo[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NAFL and current references aren't WP:RELIABLE or independent, only claim to notability is playing in the International Cup which barely generates any independent coverage, let alone players in it. Flickerd (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 05:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. St Anselm (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priyanka Agrawal[edit]

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

Delete or Redirect to 1971: Beyond Borders: Simply fails to pass WP:NACTOR and I believe its too soon for a stand alone article. GSS (talk) 18:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- very run-of-the-mill actor bio with no achievements or indications of notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 20:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Force. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiforce[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to force. The term multiforce gets plenty of hits on Google Scholar and is a plausible search term. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to force per J Milburn. This is just another minor Transformers character with no reliable sources or notability. But, unlike the others, the article space is actually a valid search term for a actual notable concept, and could be used as a redirect to that topic instead, as stated above. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in Fiji[edit]

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

There appears to be only one Rathfelder (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:LISTN – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or move and redirect to List of museums in Melanesia (merging all museums in that region in just one list), to avoid having redlinks in the navbox by country. emijrp (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with that idea.Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emijrp is the SME here. Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be decided as an editorial decision. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums in the Falkland Islands[edit]

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

A useless article. 2 items in the list. There is only an article about one of them Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree that there isn't much point in having a list when there's only really one notable item Spiderone 17:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Emijrp: Emijrp is the SME here. Unscintillating (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into the proper UK museum list, keeping redirect to avoid redlinks in the navbox by country. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of museums in Fiji. emijrp (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support this viewpoint. If the reason you are looking at the page is to know how many items are on the list; one element, and potentially zero-element lists, are fine. Redlinks, on the other hand, prevent knowing how many items are on the list. Unscintillating (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge are fine here, we can quibble about LISTN, but these lists function as a general reader navigation tool, and our results here should be aimed at providing a good navigational aid. --joe decker ^talk 06:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doorn Records[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label associated with the DJ Sander van Doorn. Sources are all WP:PRIMARY - redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 21:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's definitely notable and the sources aren't primary (Beatport for example isn't a Doorn asset). If sourcing needs to be further expanded then it's better to use the appropriate tag at the top of the page. I especially object to the redirect on the basis that it is a "vanity label" (a subjective NPOV claim). Loginnigol (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources in this case are those that list the releases of the label without any context. They require some third party evaluation. Beatport can be listed in the external links, but are pretty much useless in the article. Doorn Records is described as a 'sub-label' and trawling through releases on discogs.com, they are largely linked to van Doorn. Since 2013 Spinnin' Records has been pushing other acts and collaborations through their battery of sub-labels to promote one-off digital releases. It should redirect unless some notability of the sub-label can be established. Karst (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. - TheMagnificentist 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per above, it's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 17:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe someone can prove me wrong. A news search returned 300+ results, but I looked through the first five pages and literally all of them look like passing mention. Half or more are from a single site (youredm.com). ...And by passing mention I mean that nearly all of the results are literally just TimothyJosephWood's new album Deletion (Doorn Records), a single mention of the name. There were a couple of interviews with the founder but they were all blogs. Corresponding articles on the French and Portuguese Wikipedia's aren't any better sourced. Finally, the fact that there is no entry at all on the Dutch Wikipedia (even though there is a definite red link on the article for the parent company) makes me think we might be done here. TimothyJosephWood 18:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from a few passing mentions, nothing really shows up to represent the notability required.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - st170e, I think it's just inappropriate to close the discussion as keep then re-open it two hours later. - TheMagnificentist 08:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheMagnificentist: I was asked on my talk page to reopen the discussion. Non-admin closures are supposed to be non controversial so I complied with the request regardless. st 170e 13:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- appears to be a "vanity" label for the more notable DJ (Sander van Doorn). One article is sufficient in this case. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darko Stošić[edit]

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

Non-notable MMA fighter does not come close to meeting WP:NMMA Peter Rehse (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced biography about an MMA fighter with no top tier fights. The article consists solely of fight results. Neither WP:GNG or WP:NMMA is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heldeep Records[edit]

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

Not notable vanity label from DJ Oliver Heldens, fails the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. - TheMagnificentist 06:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per TheMagnificentist, it's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G. T. Narayana Rao[edit]

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

Successful, but mentions in the Hindu and Star of Mysore are due to him working for them. I could only check properly in English, however. This has been tagged for notability for over 8 years, hopefully we can now resolve it. Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written much but cited little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Freedom[edit]

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

Vanity label of the DJ Tiesto, sources do not indicate any notability. Lists a number of singles and remixes that fail the criteria under WP:MUSIC. Redirect to Spinnin' Records. Karst (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. - TheMagnificentist 06:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, it's a notable label that can use expansion. There are significant coverage of reliable sources on Google. 141.138.146.132 (talk) 10:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm staying out of this a little bit since I got involved with the creator's unblock request, but I just want to point out that the above users provide no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not a vanity label. Just because an artist starts a record label that does not make it a vanity label. By that definition Capitol Records is a vanity label of Johnny Mercer. A vanity label is a label completely controlled by a parent label but given a specific branding in order to please a particular artist. These in general should be merged into the parent label. A second type of vanity label is one that is for self-releases by an artist, these in general should be merged into the artist. I don't see that any such merge would be of benefit, so this is either a notable record label, or its not. The significant number of notable artists indicate a high probability that this is a notable record label, although the short history of operation indicates the opposite. Perhaps someone more familiar with this genre can find some solid sources? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Positive criminology. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anneke Lucas[edit]

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

This page is highly problematic:

It is not established that she is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia
The tone of the article is promotional
It uses a link to a webshop page where her book is offered for sale, as a reference (which I just deleted)
Not a single reputable source is referenced throughout the whole article
There is a possibility that her story is largely fabricated, as I could not find any media outlets that tried to verify it
The main contributor is @Saramgable:, who barely contributed to anything else but this article

Wikipedia has standards and which we should keep articles to. I vote to delete this page, though I welcome any counter-arguments.

Amin (Talk) 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Amin (Talk) 13:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the WP:SPA part of the rationale isn't compelling or accurate. I see the article creator previously created Peggy Cyphers. I'm also not sure what is meant by "I could not find any media outlets that tried to verify it," when the Gnews results do reveal a few reliable sources including a fairly long passage on her in The Atlantic. We can verify the broadstrokes though not the minutiae. I don't see any basis for suspecting her personal story to be a hoax. Whether it's enough all together to weakly pass GNG, well, probably not and the nominator is probably right about the promotional aspect, which means WP:TNT comes into play, perhaps. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal: Thanks for weighing in. The Atlantic covered the prison-yoga that Lucas was involved with, not her claims of being the victim of horrific sex-slavery/torture (as she described in this video).

"We can verify the broadstrokes"

Can you help me verify? Especially the claims made regarding her Early life. I find the references there very questionable to say the least. Maybe I missed something.

Amin (Talk) 21:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why the sudden urge to delete the article today? Is it because you read about her in today's news? (I did.) If so, that makes her inherently notable. As for notability, I think she may be more notable for the child sex-slave allegations than for yoga.
P.S. - I find it objectionable that the nominator of this AfD has both nominated the article and deleted a major part of it's content. Editors should not be involved in double roles in disputes. I am restoring the content. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the nominator, certainly, many claims made in the article don't seem to be backed up by a reliable source. As for the sexual abuse she endured, the Atlantic does refer to her without qualification as "a sex-trafficking survivor." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks reliable sources to back gradiose claims. Wikipedia is not news.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We do not delete articles because the article subject is featured in media. this one has established notability through sources and work.BabbaQ (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Right now, the status of the article does not look good, there are a lot of primary sources in the article and I am not finding a lot through preliminary searches. However, it seems that this could be a good encyclopedia article. So, I will work on cleaning it up and seeing if I can find good sources for the content - and then it should be clearer one way or the other.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Page is not very good but enough notoriety it seems. False or right, no matter, it has a real impact. I will provide a French translation soon the topic is stabilized.--Hcrepin (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that the article can have real impact, however, I am concerned that there aren't sufficient sources from mainstream media. The only real mainstream sources that I see is The Atlantic. The Huffington Post article is a blog article, written by someone in the yoga field.

There are 15 sources that I moved to Talk:Anneke Lucas because it doesn't seem that these fit the bill in terms of reliable, independent, secondary sources (e.g., articles written by her, content from her site, Yoga City (where she worked), blogs, youtube videos and podcasts, profiles or biographies that are likely to have been supplied by Lucas for speaking engagements and other reasons.
What remains are articles or pages, several of them in a Q&A format, for sources that I don't think fit the definition of mainstream media - and I am not sure how many of them are reliable sources (e.g., dnainfo.com, mic.dom, suitlesspursuits.com, Sutra Journal Home, happify.com, newsbeatsocial.com, givebackyoga.org, and mentalpod.com.)
It seems very strange to me that she is doing the work in New York prisons, which seems to make significant change in prisoner's lives, but there is not one New York newspaper that I can find that has written about her. I'll keep working on it, but if someone has thoughts about the sources could respond to Talk:Anneke Lucas#Finding reliable, independent secondary sources, that would be great! I will copy this message there.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cast vote for delete, agree with E.M. Gregory.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ notability has not been established, and my searches fail to establish it. Proquest search turned up only one article, in Epoch Times,[23] not generally regarded here as a WP:RS, but even if it were so regarded, we have this and The Atlantic and Mic (media company), and not only does this not look like enough, it leaves us without an indication that her dramatic backstory can pass Wikipedia:Verifiability. Certainly The Atlantic is the gold standard as sources go, but their story is not about her, it is about yoga in prison (as are the stories in Mic and Epoch Times), and cannot be used to verify the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per comments my below.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~- I have had concerns about this article for some time, and see two major threads in its current content:
- one is the extremely sensitive but unverifiable content in the 'Early life' section; this requires great caution and, therefore, if several Wikipedia editors (including myself) cannot find any corroborative material from reliable, secondary sources, then that content can simply not remain in the encyclopedia;
- the other is the positive work Lucas appears to have done in promoting, teaching and implementing the benefits of meditation and yoga in the prison system.

A possible solution might be to delete the subject article, after merging the positive content (corroborated by reliable, secondary sources) in an existing article—such as Prison Yoga Project, or Positive criminology—under a new section addressing this very specific application of yoga/meditation, where she could be named as one of several practitioners (including James Fox, and perhaps others) advocating and deploying this approach.

With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 23:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a thought. There are three sentences that would be applicable to the Prison Yoga Project page in Anneke Lucas#Prison Yoga Project. And, perhaps a sentence could be added that mentions that she began the Liberation Yoga Project.

If the sources are available, it should be possible to present Lucas' work in the context of Fox's, since they worked together for awhile, and also include the unique differentiators in their respective approaches, if any.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Positive criminology makes sense. Yoga and meditation are discussed in a "Studies" subsection, so it should not go there. Perhaps in a section up above where different types of treatment are examined. The article is already chock-full of content, but is seems like a good place to go. In that case, it would seem to me that Prison Yoga Project should also be mentioned.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with your ideas. There already is a section on Treatment and rehabilitation, to which a new subsection could be added to cover the different Yoga/meditation projects, locations and respective approaches.
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another option might be to merge the Liberation Yoga Project and Prison Yoga Project into a general article about Yoga as a form of positive criminology (or something like that) - and also mention studies and other programs all in one article.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a very good idea and would have my support. There is a precedent: Yoga as exercise or alternative medicine, which could be used as a guiding template for the article you suggest. Then, it could perhaps be added as a See also in the Positive criminology article.

Whichever way you decide to go, Carole, please feel empowered to be bold and to consider preparing a draft that could be developed collectively. Although I've just declared I am on an indefinite break, I would be motivated to participate in any way and at a time you deem appropriate and useful. Very best wishes and good luck.

With kind regards for now;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 01:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing a redirect to a short summary in Positive criminology where the small amount of information about her that that is verifiable will fit well, even improve a poor quality article on a notable topic. A similar PROMO article about the Prison Yoga Project founder James Fox (prison reform advocate) should also be merged into Positive criminology, as can Prison Yoga Project.@CaroleHenson: who has a good grasp of both the problems with this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support this excellent proposal; thank you.
  Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 17:20, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support E.M. Gregory's proposal. I am also happy to draft something. It seems like we should be posting a message on the Talk:Prison Yoga Project and Talk:James Fox (prison reform advocate) pages about this. I'll do that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the draft: prison yoga programs.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carole; very well done! Your excellent draft is complete and to the point; it will fit well in the article on Positive criminology since it is of a similar length to the existing prose in the subsections nested under Treatment and rehabilitation. Therefore, I'd say your current draft is good to go. Thank you for all your great work in consolidating these related articles. With kind regards;

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 10:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just wondering about next steps, because I don't know how a closer would assess the keep, delete, and merge votes. Do we ping people who voted to keep or delete earlier to get their reaction to the merge proposal?—CaroleHenson (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carole; I apologize for delay in responding: I've just returned home and seen your latest message above. Unfortunately, I've never done a merge, but am hopeful this might help: Proposed mergers. Or perhaps E.M.Gregory, who proposed the merge, might know how best to proceed from here on? Thank you. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 16:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I know how to perform the actual movement of text and the following related steps. What I meant was, I don't see how a closer would find that there is consensus for the merger / redirect option.

Dear Carole; I understood what you asked for and hoped the above guideline might lead you to the required 'closing' procedure. I can only apologise again for not being able to help you more. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 19:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, oh, ok, thanks. Regarding the Merger as a result of a deletion discussion section, I don't know if three votes would be considered "rough consensus" or not. I'm feeling my way through this part - but maybe input by others will help. I'm a bit lost at this point about what it takes to close the discussion.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carole; I too feel a bit lost but it seems to me that your method of approach makes abundant sense. I will have more time tomorrow morning to carry out some research on the guidelines for closing a deletion request, and will report back to you by midday. Thank you for all you're doing to bring this to a successful outcome.
With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why I cannot copy the content into Positive criminology right now, so I'll do that. As an aside, I also added a comment at about there being sufficient content for a main article with a world viewpoint on the sandbox talk page.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amin, Shawn in Montreal, Petri Krohn, Johnpacklambert, Hcrepin, BabbaQ, and Saramgable: E.M.Gregory proposed a merger of several articles, which has been drafted prison yoga programs. I pinged you because you voted to keep or delete the article, or provided comments, before this option to merge the content and redirect to the receiving article was explored. See the conversation above. ~~Does your vote change as the result of this proposal?~~—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to reframe this to, do you support the merge proposal?—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether and where to merge the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am thinking a generalized article on prison yoga programs will overcome the passing nature of some articles focusing on one individual and their work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate you taking the effort to come to a solution @CaroleHenson: To be fair, I am not sure how viable a "Prison Yoga programs" page would have. By the same reasoning, would you also support a Wiki page on Prison Vipassana ? Or a Wiki page for any other general activity, that also happens to take place in some prisons? Amin (Talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, based upon the state of the positive criminology and related articles right now, it would absolutely be undue weight to get into that kind of detail on this topic right now. I'm working on the positive criminology article - slowly - and will focus on that for now.—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge proposal, as expressed by E.M.Gregory above (at 5:09pm, 4 January 2017) and executed by CaroleHenson, who added a new section into Positive criminology (at 7:06pm, 5 January 2017).
- Comment: Redirects now need to be applied to the Anneke Lucas & Prison Yoga Project articles to complete the task.

Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 11:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think I previously misunderstood the merge proposal, and thought that a new Prison Yoga Programs page would have been created. For what it's worth, I support merging the valuable pieces of content into the Positive Criminology page. Amin (Talk) 00:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prison yoga programs as discussed above, or Positive_criminology#Yoga_and_meditation_programs which seems to be the latest being discussed. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the redirect to Positive criminology, for reasons I stated above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the redirect to merged section in Positive criminology—CaroleHenson (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - either as a biography or reframed as Liberation Prison Yoga. Passes WP:GNG. Problematic content and sources currently in the article is not relevant to AfD unless the entire article would need to be deleted and rewritten from scratch in order to be acceptable (i.e. WP:TNT), and it doesn't look like that's the case. We have an article in The Atlantic, about a third to half of which is about Lucas/her work (i.e. significant coverage). We have an article in Mic about her and her work (the title is "Meet the woman who...", so I don't understand those writing this off as being about yoga in prisons rather than about her and her work bringing yoga into prisons). Additional coverage in Epoch Times. Published interview in Sutra Journal. Small bit of press in Village Voice. She was also the subject of an interview on Huffington Post. On that subject, I want to address a couple things that come up at AfD from time to time. First, an interview is a primary source in the sense that it came from the subject and so can't be viewed as neutral; since it was an interview conducted by and published by an entity with no connection to the subject, it is nonetheless helpful for establishing notability. Second, the Huffington Post is a hugely popular source that absolutely contributes to notability. It has a blog format, but it's one with editors (the extent to which they exercise editorial oversight is spotty, of course, but it's not a personal blog). There are indeed many contexts in which it's not a reliable source, to be sure, and the ideal would be not to use it in most cases, but for notability purposes it works. There are plenty of sources which aren't known for rigorous, accurate reporting, and yet support notability (think about someone being the cover story in People or Entertainment Weekly or something) because notability is about what's worthy of note, so mainstream sources (assuming we're not talking about a venue that promotes fringe views, etc.) certainly helps notability. Then there are some other not-bottom-of-the-barrel-but-not-great blogs like ESME. This seems like GNG to me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are some people with multiple bolded !votes (e.g. a delete and a support). Please combine or strike one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was among them. I have now struck the "delete" in favor of a redirect. I support a redirect/merge, but do not see enough notability for an independent article, in part because although the work she does is verifiable, her dramatic backstory would need much stronger sourcing to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was going by the "Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" represented a second round of voting. Common sense, would seem to mean that the second vote (where there is one) overrides the initial vote. What I am seeing is:

User	Initial vote	Merge, redirect to Positive criminology#Prison yoga programs
Amin	Nominated	Support
Shawn in Montreal	Comment, no vote	-
Petri Krohn	Keep
Johnpacklambert	Delete	Comment that appears to support, but no specific vote
Hcrepin	Keep
BabbaQ	Keep
Saramgable	Keep
E.M.Gregory	Delete	Support
K.e.coffman		Support
CaroleHenson	Delete	Support
Pdebee	Delete	Support
Rhododendrites		Keep

—CaroleHenson (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People vote multiple times pretty often, and given the way human brains work, seeing existing opinions influences one's own (even if subconsciously, and even if in minor or contrary ways). Not everyone carefully reads the discussion to see who says what and how positions evolve. Generally speaking, for the processes that involve a bolded vote or !vote, best practice is to modify that [!]vote rather than add new ones to the same thread. For AfD, it's most clearly articulated at WP:GD. Not a big deal, and I'm certainly not saying there's anything fishy going on btw. It's just confusing. I'll also add that the table is a sensible idea, but as not everybody would think to opine and also change the table, unless someone updates it for them it stands to misrepresent people who subsequently change their mind (if only for a short time). </pedantry> :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in my earlier edit summary, I did not know that we are not expected to re-!vote when an AfD is relisted after a new proposal has been made. I therefore struck out the 'Support' because its accompanying text was shorter than the earlier 'Delete', which was more detailed. However, in my mind, the outcome of either !vote is the same (the positive and verifiable content is relocated to Positive_criminology#Yoga_and_meditation_programs) except that the article on Lucas is either deleted or redirected. I remain supportive of either of these two outcomes. Thank you, and my apologies for the confusion I may have caused.

With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.^(talk)^(guestbook) 23:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry I was less then clear. I meant to strike my first vote and go for redirect instead of delete, but didn't bother to wade through to find my first comment and strike it. I normally would have but didn't feel up to the work with such a long winded deletion discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're My Number One (song)[edit]

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

May not meet the notability guideline for music. Okamialvis (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think the article must not be removed, this is an significant song, although it not chart— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefer (talk • contribs)

@Okamialvis: Are you saying this does not meet the notability guidelines, or it may not? If it only "may not" it shouldn't have been brought to AfD yet. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't find significant coverage. Unless any can be found I suggest this is deleted and a hatnote added on the You're My Number One article (also about a song, making the disambiguation in this title rather daft) pointing to Enrique (album). I would also note that the tracklistings in this article are incorrect as most releases had multiple tracks. --Michig (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is one of Enrique's single in his 1999 album "Enrique". He also used it to collaborate with musicians all around the world, and many, many people, especially in East Asia, known this song very deeply.

I've seen many singles, many songs with less popular and didn't chart but exist on Wikipedia with no reasons, and no one notice about deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Giangkiefe (talk • contribs)

@Giangkiefe: Each article is judged on its own merits; other things exist, and the fact that other similar articles might exist doesn't mean this one should too, it simply means people haven't gotten around to the others yet. If you have evidence that this song meets the criteria listed at the notability guidelines for songs, please offer it. 331dot (talk) 19:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add hatnote to You're My Number One per Michig's suggestion above. No significant coverage found for this song to meet WP:GNG. Gongshow talk 17:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nomination is overrun by SPAs. No prejudice against renomination by another editor in good standing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Riskin[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are authored by the subject or lists in which the subject appears. ZhangYongWang (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed by User:NimbleToad that this article was previously logged for deletion when it was a draft (WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Dan_Riskin). The result was keep, but I note that the two keep votes came from users whose edit history suggests a WP:Conflict_of_interest. ZhangYongWang (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a repeat of a discussion from last month, proposed by a new member. Out of 5 comments last month, only the nominator voted delete. I am an editor and an engineer in the field of healthcare quality. I do not know the subject personally and do not believe there is a CoI. In my opinion, references to Congressional testimony and peer-reviewed literature represent curated work, document the subject's position in the highly contentious and important field of healthcare reform, and should not be excluded based on the subject's involvement. More comments are welcome. NimbleToad (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with NimbleToad that a repeat of the discussion from 3 weeks ago fails Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Updated the page to highlight subject's influence on data-driven healthcare and value-based healthcare, which are both related to healthcare reform. Not sure I have concern over refs as long as they have clear attribution and support the text. Agree with ZhangYongWang that 5 comments in the last discussion was light and more feedback would be preferable. Alpharun (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is a strange coincidence that as of time of writing this comment, the nominator and two voters have combined edits of one hundred. The article also appears to be a case of WP:CITEKILL, making this page dubious. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wow, completely agree with Arun Kumar SINGH. Got overenthusiastic adding refs during the AfD discussion. Just pared them back, though happy to cut further if anyone feels the page needs it. Alpharun (talk) 04:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since I don't see any actual argument against WP:NOTABILITY, which was the point of this AfD. There are enough secondary sources over a period of time to support basic criteria in WP:BIO. The primary sources are irritating, but aren't particularly misused. There have been a lot of editors of the page and the content seems reasonably neutral. Jeff Quinn (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As of writing this comment, Special:Contributions/ZhangYongWang shows an account where all contributions to date are solely focused on deletion of this page. *sigh* I'm wondering if I upset another editor. NimbleToad (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor Ioan Trașcă[edit]

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

I'm not really seeing a valid claim to notability here, as defined by WP:PROF. The subject doesn't meet criterion 6 - he was vice rector rather than rector, and I don't see any other criteria he might meet. Certainly, the coverage is thin: either passing mentions or search results, which are not sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Vice-rector is I think the head of the university, and if so he meetsWP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, @DGG:, vice rector is not the head of the university, that would be the rector. The rectors of this university have been Păun Otiman (1990-2004), Alexandru Moisuc (2004-2012), Paul Pîrșan (2012-2016) and Cosmin Alin Popescu (2016-). Teodor Ioan Trașcă has never been rector. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:02, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then you're saying it is not the same system as vice- in the UK? If so,it would be a delete here. DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct—as in most of continental Europe, the heads of Romanian universities are rectors; vice-rectors are their subordinates. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The motivation to enter T. I. Trasca in Wikipedia was, in addition to his activities as dean and vice-rector in the USABTM Timisoara, his contribution to research in food processing and his international engagement esp. in the Association for European Life Science Universities (> 60 Universities).--Raupp (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Please indicate specifically how he meets any of the notability criteria set out by WP:PROF. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of WP:Prof#C1 [24]. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

T. Trasca has international responsibilities as Romanian member of the executive committe of the Interfaculty Committee Agraria, the European Association of > 60 Life Science Universities.--Raupp (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And which of the WP:PROF criteria, as established by independent reliable sources, would this address? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The academic work of Teodor Trasca has made a significant impact in the area of higher education,

affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.--Raupp (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ultimately this falls short of verifiability requirements. WP:COUNTSORT can be thought of as an extension of WP:BLUE: if it's obvious, go ahead and add them up. However, here it is not at all obvious that the ESPN source supports the aggregate figures. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monday Night Football all-time team standings[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I realize this article was very recently nominated for deletion (I missed that discussion). However, in looking to improve this article, I cannot. It is unsourced and I cannot find any sources to determine if the data on the page is correct or not.

I looked at the "keep" reasons in the last AFD in order to try to improve this article, and they pointed to references, but they were more about why "Monday Night Football" is notable, not this list of all-time standings.

Therefore, I'm nominating this article for deletion because it is unverifiable. It does not pass WP:GNG because there are not any references that speak to all-time MNF records.

I will withdraw this nomination if someone can show that this list is accurate. X96lee15 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can't see any encyclopedic value in calculating the records of teams in only those games shown on a particular TV show, plus it is almost certainly OR -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. X96lee15 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOR. Non encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong/Speedy/Snow~~ Keep per the reasons given at the last AfD, which was only a few months ago. I realize this will likely get deleted here, which disappoints me, but it was clearly explained and demonstrated at the last AfD why the alphabet soup policies/guidelines/essays being cited there (presumably without being read) did not apply. Nevertheless, people kept using them as reasons to support deletion. Since my policy-based arguments were ignored last time, I'll just point you all to the last AfD and firmly state my position in favor of retaining the article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I respected the last AFD, but when I came across this list and tried to update/verify/source it, I could not. If I can't find any sources for the list, it cannot possibly pass WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position (and I respect you quite a bit, so please understand this is not personal) and realize that this AfD will likely end in a 'delete' result. However, I am not comfortable with such an outcome so soon after the last AfD. I will tone down my prior statement though as it was too much of a knee-jerk reaction. Lepricavark (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons outlined below

I held the position of keep for the last AFD and see no reason to change it
The argument that there is no way to valildate is easily solved Monday Night All-Time Results
Two invalid deletion arguments have been made and should be ignored
1. Just because an editor cannot see a way to improve an article is not a reason to delete the article.
2. no encyclopedic value--see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions
There is no original research involvled. The sample sources below show that other third party news sources compile the data and the source above shows the all-time sources. See details at essay Counting and sorting is not original research.
The following third-party sources show pass of WP:GNG, discussing the topic of all-time records on Monday Night Football directly: INSIDE THE NUMBERS: The Dolphins And Monday Night Football Dolphins News 2013; Buffalo Bills Monday Night Football history: all 40 (and counting) games SB Nation 2015; News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens on Monday Night Football CBS Boston 2016; Good News: The Redskins aren't as bad on Saturdays as they are on Mondays Washington Post 2016; The Redskins are worse on 'Monday Night Foot ball' than anyone is at anything Fox Sports 2016; 6 Things to know for the Jets-Cardinals Monday Night Football game USA Today 2016
Finally, the information is worthy of including into the main article. However because of the size of the content I believe it is best kept as a seperate list article to prevent the main article from becoming too large and unwieldy.

These are some of the many reasons to keep the article--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The all-time history link you provide only goes up to 2002. There's 14 years (and counting) of results that are not referenced. The reasons for deletion are that it fails WP:GNG and WP:V. The unreferenced tag on the article cannot be removed because of that. I'd love to be able to remove it, but there is no way. None of the references you provide can remove that tag, therefore, I can't see how it can pass WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you don't believe that there are sources for the final results of each MNF game played, as if sports newscasters and writers stopped covering the subject in 2003? That's ridiculous! Of course it can be sourced, it just hasn't yet. That is easily a surmountable problem. There is no deadline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're calling other's arguments "ridiculous"? Gotcha.

I believe there are sources for the final results for each MNF game played. However, I believe that this article is more than just simple counting and sorting. These games span 45 years. There are MNF games that are not played on Mondays. Are those included? Look at this recent edit on the article for example. It updated the Steelers win total by 1. Is it correct? Beats me. Can you tell me? Probably not. Are there currently errors on the page? Probably. Can we know? Not without a ton of work. And if the article does get to a point where it's 100% accurate, without a central reference that documents the records, it will get out of sync again. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no deadline. The "ridiculous" argument is that "there is no way" to remove the unreferenced tag. Sure it can be removed: an enthusiastic editor or editors can collaborate together and contribute to to the research, just like with every other article on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's extensive evidence that team MNF records have long been a matter of interest and coverage. Assuming an up to date table of the standings can't be located, there is no actual dispute about the scores of the games and these records can be easily kept current by mere clerical effort. I agree with Paul McDonald that routine counting and sorting do not make something into OR. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For transparency's sake, I'd just like to note that the Wikipedia:Counting and sorting are not original research essay was written by Paulmcdonald and that 14 of the 18 edits on the essay were done by him. Also, "essays are not Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." — X96lee15 (talk) 03:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problem. I got another one... Wikipedia:Quote your own essay. They seem to have wide acceptance.--Paul McDonald (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found one non-Wikipedia hit for "Monday Night Football all-time results". That's here by ESPN, and all that is is a list you can click on to see various games by year. It also ends at 2002, so apparently they've lost even that minimal interest. So it fails WP:GNG, unless someone can produce more reliable sources. It's a stat right up there with best results after bye weeks.Clarityfiend (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment be sure to look at the other references found and shown above.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Well, News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens On Monday Night Football and 6 Things to know for the Jets-Cardinals Monday Night Football game treat it as sports trivia. What's your point? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The word "trivia" is not in either of the articles. I do not believe that is a fair assessment of the references.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Fun facts" is pretty much a synonym for trivia, and that's what they're called in both. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Good thing that's only one of the sources I provided (out of six), and the "fun facts" article is actually titled "News, Notes & Fun Facts Heading Into Patriots-Ravens on Monday Night Football" -- stop trying to make the articles say something they do not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy until at least such a time as it can be conclusively proven that there are no errors in this list, and that the information contained in this list is accurate. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and the reasons listed above. While Monday Night Football holds notability, this specific article does not for me. GauchoDude (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal point of view is not a reason to delete anything and is specifically listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnecessary to include and I doubt the NFL has such a thing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Confused--you doubt if the NFL has records of results of Monday Night Football? What are you doubting? And as far as "unnecessary" goes, we don't WP:NEED to do anything.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lizard (talk) 07:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the WP:LISTCRUFT arguments, but the really compelling argument is X96lee15's, It updated the Steelers win total by 1. Is it correct? Beats me. Can you tell me? Probably not. WP:V is inviolable, and we fail that here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Qazi Nisar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO... Rameshnta909 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wish people would perform obvious article moves before nominating for deletion. Here are some better search links, which I haven't yet evaluated:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 00:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Indeed, as WordPress is not a reliable source and sources such as "Greater Kashmir" are not independent. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:41, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like there's enough out there to demonstrate WP:BASIC is met (whether or not TNT should apply is a separate question). A couple of sample sources: [25], [26] That someone's death is being commemorated by shutting down a town with a population of a hundred thousand people 22 years later seems pretty suggestive of notability as well. I also suspect that there's better coverage in non-English sources. --joe decker ^talk 03:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verne E. Rupright[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another former mayor of Wasilla. After a certain person who once held this office moved into the national spotlight, suddenly being mayor of a suburb in Alaska was deemed a Big Deal™. However, if we follow the ideas that notability is not inherited and routine coverage does not impart notability there just isn't much here. We've got reports ont he election itself, which would have happened whether this person was involved or not, and a few things that mention that certain other former mayor more prominently than this gentlemen. We're talking about someone who won with 466 votes. Not a 466 vote lead, 466 all together. This just is not a majpr position and unless the mayor is exceptional for some other reason holders of this office are not inherintly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as the mayor of a tiny city of less than 9,000 people. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ism schism (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wasilla is not large enough to hand an automatic WP:NPOL pass to all of its mayors just because mayor, in and of itself — while it's true that the town has one former mayor who quite obviously passes NPOL, she does that for going on to hold a different NPOL-passing office after serving as mayor of Wasilla and not because mayor of Wasilla per se. So everybody else who was mayor of Wasilla before or after her does not get to inherit an inclusion freebie from her — and while there is a little bit of nationalized coverage being shown here, even that coverage is entirely about him commenting on That Other Person rather than about him mayoring. So even that coverage speaks to her notability, not to his. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. Edit history is intact in case somebody wants to do a (likely uncontroversial, given the lack of comments) proper merge. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strafe (Transformers)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Autobots. BOZ (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, unless some decent sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Another non-notable Transformers character with no reliable sources. It should be redirected to the master Autobot list like the other minor Transformers. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tony Mortimer. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Songs From The Suitcase[edit]

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

Unreferenced tracklist. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tony Mortimer. There's coverage around but it's mostly of the form "Tony Mortimer to release solo album", with not much else to say about it. --Michig (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with that idea. Rathfelder (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leans towards "keep", though the end result is the same. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri Chandler[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate reliable secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Succeeds, assuming that's the appropriate term for a vote to keep the article. Prompted by noting the nomination in passing (sorry, Magnolia677), I did a substantive upgrade of the article, happening from Google's lead to have focused on the artist's international standing and the many peer acts that have Wiki pages. Plenty of good sources, I think, found for it; just scratched the surface it felt like. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly weak keep. Meets WP:MUSICBIO through coverage in reliable sources: [27],[28],[29],[30]. — sparklism ^hey! 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources appear self-published, while the last two sources are just a few sentences long. Magnolia677 (talk)

The first two sources are artist biographies at AllMusic and Resident Advisor, neither of which are self-published. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 07:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested after more than two weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MTI Countdowns[edit]

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

Delete. Article, based entirely on the topic's own primary source content about itself rather than reliable source coverage in media, about a "record chart" podcast. No indication is given here of the chart's methodology -- whether it goes by IFPI-certified charts and would thus be a valid source for real chart positions, or whether it just uses its own random process to compile a self-created BADCHART -- and so there can be no automatic presumption of notability, just because it exists, in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nominator. Lacks in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, as required by our notability criteria. Citobun (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion Automotive[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is minimal and mostly about local awards ([31] [32] ) agtx 22:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Seems entirely WP:ROUTINE, does not meet WP:NCORP. MB 04:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AKS Empire[edit]

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

Multiple major issues including, but not limited to, WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. A non-notable inline roller hockey team which based on the issues raised should not have a stand-alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are inline roller hockey teams of similar stature with the same concerns listed above:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to North American Roller Hockey Championships. No independent notability established for individual teams. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: There's no notability established for this putative "league" -- certainly ephemeral and with a broken link -- never mind for its equally ephemeral teams. Fails the GNG, of course. I oppose a redirect to the North American Roller Hockey Championships article; I haven't seen any evidence there's a connection between the organizations. Ravenswing 04:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom Arcade Hits[edit]

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

May not meet notability guidelines for video games, as it is a compilation, a simple mention on the article for the included games would suffice. Okamialvis (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the condition that it's expanded upon/cleaned up slightly. Spilia4 (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Spilia4: This doesn't really seem like a valid argument for keeping the article. The nominator questioned the topic's notability, and expanding and cleaning up the article doesn't fix that issue. What we need is reliable independent sources that provide significant coverage on the compilation. Otherwise it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Furthermore, we can't expand the article when there is a lack of coverage from reliable sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. None of the results from a reliable video game source search cover the compilation. There's largely empty product pages for the compilation, but no articles or reviews dedicated to the topic. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't say with certainty that there's not significant coverage on this game out there (though these 2-3 game retro compilations tend to attract little media attention, and obviously there's little to be said about them in terms of history, development, and marketing), but as it stands there's absolutely nothing in this article that would be lost if it were replaced by a brief mention in each of the articles for the included games, as Okamialvis suggests. In the unlikely event that someone digs up more, they can just recreate the article. It really wouldn't be any more work than bringing the article as it stands up to WP standards.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob LaBelle[edit]

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

Delete: insufficiently notable actor Quis separabit? 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CastleCops[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (organizations) requirement. It was deleted, restored, and declined for speedy deletion. Might as well have another AfD. The subsequent notoriety due to some hacking seemed to have attracted only minor coverage, and I am not sure if it is about the organization or some of its hackers; in either case I think the article still fails notability. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it was a notable resource for its time in the (then) quite narrow field it was in. Similar in scope to Bleeping Computer which still exists. Shritwod (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable enough; see [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. --Fixuture (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Washington Post, ;;ComputerWorld, and The Register articles about this site means it passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Not the strongest arguments for retaining the article but clearly no consensus for deletion after many weeks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dharti Kahe Pukar Ke[edit]

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

Unsourced article on a film of no evident significance. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@JzG: I have personally added some sources to the articles if any wrong do correct it. The article has significant but needs clean up --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 08:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does need significant clean-up. Ajay Devgn is a huge Bollywood actor and the film is probably his only Bhojpuri appearance, giving it a lot of trivia significance. Probably [38] will suggest why Bhojpuri movies did not attract much attention earlier. Jupitus Smart 09:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film stars two notable actors Ajay Devgn and Manoj Tiwari. As Bhojpuri films are a small industry, most of the coverage it received would also be in Bhojpuri. Elia Soaten (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Teens for Teens[edit]

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

Two years ago I marked this article for speedy deletion A7, for whatever reason it was not deleted. I can find no significant coverage for this article to meet WP:GNG. Furthermore, after 2 years, this article is just as poor as ever, and likely does not belong on Wikipedia. The article was created the same month the organization was created, and as far as I can tell, they have done nothing notable since. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking through the first five pages of news coverage, nearly all appears to be coincidental word usage. What isn't is either local human interest coverage ([39], [40], [41], [42]) or human interest pieces ostensibly about the creator and not the organization ([43], [44], [45]). Basically all of it falls into what I would personally qualify as "cute factor" coverage: Look at these adorable kids and their adorable foray into politics. At the end of the day, doing something ordinary in a notably adorable way doesn't constitute notability. TimothyJosephWood 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with original nomination. If the organization is so unimportant that it hasn't generated any media interest in two years, it's doubtful it ever will. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Demolition[edit]

Most are completely unsourced, a couple have a single, primary source which is the team's website. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:RAWDATA. Full of redlinks and some have broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Wikipedia is WP:NOTWEBHOST. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: No evidence that any of these putative teams meet the GNG. I ran an even dozen of them through Google News -- one would think if they could garnish any coverage, they'd do so in the lively sports presses of cities like Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Denver and the like -- and couldn't find a single hit outside of the respective Wikipedia articles. Ravenswing 04:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, non-notable, no reason to keep these on WP. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All teams totally non notable. I have also added the remaining AfD templates to the articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Herzinger[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG Boleyn (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the Puschart Prize is enough on its own, as it does seem like a notable award. But I found no significant coverage beyond that, just minor mentions in reviews of his editorial work ([46]). Definitely not enough for GNG, but it is also possible I missed some reviews of his short story or book. Yvarta (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Pushcart Prize is a major prize, and there are a lot of Google hits, leading to coverage of the books he has edited and also to his works on minimalism and more. One hit mentions New York Times coverage of his opening or taking over the bookstore (i didn't go get the NYT article). The bookstore itself is possibly/likely notable; we can have just a combo article. This source, for one, clarifies this is the one Kim Herzinger who also teaches at University of Houston–Victoria...all the Google hits are this person. --do ncr am 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete He is not the NY bookstore owner. He teaches at a minor univeristy [47], but as a lecturer, a capacity in which colleges often hire writers. The Pushcart Prize is a real honor, but it is given to a longish list of stories annually, and is not sufficient. I ran his name through a Proquest search, where the owner of a popular bookstore got at least as many hits. Almost all , perhaps all, of the hits on the Herzinger are in the form "Edited by Kim Herzinger" in reviews of the collections he has edited. Not seeing anything like a profile for the college lecturer/editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My error. I was assuming that the same guy could not be teaching in HOuston and running a NYC bookstore. My mistake. Lots of profiles. Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Kim+Herzinger%22+++site%3ANYTimes.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8} is a search on the archive of the NYTimes. Both local where it covered the local bookstoe, and and national in in mentioning him as an editor.16:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General and I[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTFILM. Also, WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TVSERIES: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." Hunan Television is reported to be China's 2nd most watched network. Hard to see how this won't be found notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can't vouch for the existing sources given they're in a language I don't speak, but I agree broadly with Shawn's comments. A nationally airing television program with (what I'm going to assume in this case are) a few reliable sources about the basics of the program. Notability and verifiability are met. Not sure what NOTTVGUIDE has to do with anything? -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:TVSERIES. Yes, NOTTVGUIDE does not mean we can't have articles on TV shows. Anyway, Google Translate makes it clear enough (barely) that the first ref alone is indeed a feature article about the new series, in what seems to be reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. What's WP:NOTFILM to do with a TV series? Timmyshin (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I can't close as merge to an article that doesn't exist. If Icebob99 (or someone else) wants to create an article about the band, feel free to ping me on my talk page to get the history restored once the band article is created so that any useful content can be merged. T. Canens (talk) 09:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daiqing Tana[edit]

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

PROD Contested by Article Editor , sources in the article all point to either somewhere where the subject's movies are being sold, or to YouTube, all failing WP:RS and/or WP:N , a search reveals only one source that may hold merit, this , but all it seems to talk about is a movie that he's in, and not the subject itself. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 19:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A click on the news search above finds a few more sources that may hold merit. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the links above are simply announcements mentions and listings, no actual substance and that's exactly what the article shows hence delete. It's quite simple enough when all that's available is her own websites. SwisterTwister talk 21:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, as the creator of the article contest the deletion as it is a stub article, on Chinese singer, improve it rather than deleting, as the singer and the band she represents is really notable. I'll try to add better references on the article in English, as the most notables are in Chinese. Unless the skies fall down (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Update: I already added one reference in the article about the band and the members it represents in English citing China Radio International using the appropriate template (cite web) (I am still learning). Unless the skies fall down (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Chinggis6:, per WP:NOENG , sources that aren't in English can be used if necessary, but English sources are preferred. MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ARTIST. Perhaps the creator can take this back to their user draft page until the article is in better shape. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. WP:BASIC states that
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability
. These four sources, [48] [49] [50] audio radio story (only one of which appears to be in the article), establish notability for the band. English Wikipedia does not have an article for HAYA (band) (French Wikipedia does, though). While the passing mentions of Tana in these sources could possibly constitute an article about her, I think the information would best be suited to sections about individual band members. If the creator of the article (Chinggis6) can produce those Chinese language sources that provide significant coverage of Tana herself, then I will change my vote to keep, but all the sources that I could find established the notability of the band and not the singer (cart before the horse in this case?) so it makes sense to have an article about the band before the singer. Icebob99 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Icebob99: forgive my confusion here but, are you voting for the article to be merged with the French Wiki article on the band? (It seems like a tall order to get someone who will be able to translate it all, is all) Or are you asking for someone to throw an article on the band together on English Wiki then merge it into there? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 01:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Matticusmadness: if the consensus is merge, then I will create the article myself. I found out enough about the band when deciding whether Tana met notability. Icebob99 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Fontes[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally-sourced article about a person notable only for winning election as a county recorder. This is not a level of office that satisfies WP:NPOL -- while his predecessor happens to have an article, she got one for turning herself into a nationalized controversy, and not just for being a county recorder per se. So the fact that Helen Purcell clears the bar as a special case, for reasons beyond the holding of an otherwise non-notable position in and of itself, does not mean that Adrian Fontes automatically gets one too just for succeeding her. Bearcat (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete eklection as county recorder is not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county recorder not notable. No independent signs of notability yet. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Bearcat makes a strong analysis and review of the sources. I've changed my !vote post that and struck my initial keep !vote. Thanks. Lourdes 01:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)) ~~Keep~~ Seems to easily qualify on BASIC; and if sources like NBC, Foothills Focus are combined with ABC and FOX, then on GNG too... NBC News ABC Foothills Focus Fox KTAR News KJZZ Arizona PBS, contains a good foreword before the interview Nogales International Downtown Phoenix. (For example, the NBC link contains the following: "The Latino who will now be responsible for conducting elections in one of the nation's largest counties says he wants to boost confidence in the process. Adrian Fontes, a Democrat and political newcomer, was elected as the new Maricopa County recorder, after longtime incumbent Helen Purcell formally conceded the race on Tuesday. With a population of 4.1 million residents, of whom 30 percent are Latino, Maricopa County is the fourth largest in the country. Fontes' duties as Maricopa County recorder will include maintaining voter registration rolls for registered voters, ensuring that all national, state and countywide elections run smoothly, and providing support to cities during elections. Fontes, a father of three, is a former prosecutor and a veteran who served in the Marine Corps from 1992 to 1996. He's currently a private practice attorney, practicing civil and criminal law. He was born in Nogales, Arizona, and says his family has deep roots in the state. They've been living in southern Arizona for the last 300 plus years, even before Arizona became a state. Fonts could possibly be the first Latino to win a countywide position in Maricopa County, an indication that Latinos are making their growing presence felt."; this is absolutely worthy coverage by a source.) Lourdes 07:50, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added six of the sources to the article. Some interested editor should expand the same based on the said sources. Lourdes 09:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Bearcat, Johnpacklambert and 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco for a quick review. Lourdes 09:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not swayed by the fact that a couple of local sources happen to exist about his initial election. Local media coverage of local officeholders always exists, so we would always have to keep an article about every smalltown mayor, every municipal councillor, every school board trustee, every county recorder, every tax assessor in existence if local coverage alone were enough — our standards for distinguishing notable local officeholders from non-notable local officeholders would be disembowelled entirely, because purely local coverage could always be shown. But local officeholders aren't always (or even usually) of (inter-)nationalized interest — so for an officeholder at the municipal or county level of politics, we require the depth and breadth of media coverage to show them as significantly more notable than the norm before a Wikipedia article is deemed appropriate, such as by nationalizing beyond the purely local in a sustained and substantive way. But those sources are virtually all local media outlets in Maricopa, not national media — "NBC Latino" is the one exception, but one piece of nationalized coverage isn't enough nationalized coverage to make "county recorder" a claim of notability by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY. GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like some more eyes on the new sources, just to be sure. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We do not customarily count local sources for local politicians, and there is no reason this should be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while there are more than enough sources about Fontes (Mother Jones, NBC News, mentioned in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, not to mention the dozens of local sources, I don't think that Fontes meets WP:SUSTAINED. He certainly passes WP:GNG, but as WP:SUSTAINED says,
New companies and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER

Maricopa County is a bit bigger than the average county, and it's been in the news lately what with the outburst of electoral attention directed at Hispanics, which makes Fontes' job more interesting than his equivalent out in North Dakota, but he would still fail WP:NPOL. Since he then fails WP:SUSTAINED which seems to supercede WP:GNG, I !vote delete.

Delete Agree subject is not notable at this time. Recorder is not an office that usually generates much coverage and unless there are ongoing controversies and sustained coverage, this is just a routine local politician. Existing coverage just states he was elected. MB 22:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In this case it seems the community would prefer to assess each article individually. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Doral[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, relies far too heavily on plot summaries and not on demonstrating any notability whatsoever. Sources (if any) do not assert notability for the nominated characters. Cylon B (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Battlestar_Galactica_characters. Normally I would defer to the nominator's obvious superior knowledge when it comes to these matters, given that s/he is a Cylon. But this is an unambiguous search term, so there's no reason not to redirect to the appropriate list. A Train^talk 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All and warn nominator for WP:BEFORE failure. While the nominator asserts that the articles fail to meet the GNG, a trivial search using the news, books, or scholar links for Aaron Doral, above, springs to life with gems like this. Cylon B, just because an article could be improved doesn't mean it's worthy for deletion. You were told previously to nominate character articles individually and a few at a time--a smaller mass nomination misses the point. I'll add a few more examples of character coverage of Cavil--I've added a Find Sources template for him above. Jclemens (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question for User:Jclemens -- would you argue that any of the sources you've posted here establish depth of coverage for any of the article topics in this AFD? For example, one of the Battlestar Galactica books in your sources mentions Aaron Doral just twice. Leaving aside the question of the book's suitability as a Wikipedia source, that's a book entirely on the subject of BSG that considers Aaron Doral to be trivial. A Train^talk 17:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it backwards: the nominator, and those arguing for deletion, are expected to demonstrate that the topic could never be reasonably expected to meet the GNG. You're arguing about one particular source in isolation, which, regardless of the outcome, does not establish that there is 1) no coverage, as the nominator asserts, or 2) not likely to ever be sufficient coverage. If you look through the scholar links, especially on some of the more prominent characters, you'll find that academics are still writing about it, just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, such that no matter how much a particular editor doesn't like the topic, the coverage is present and continuing. Jclemens (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]... and we could go on and on all day. Jclemens (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Number Three given the following sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 from a rather brief Google search and there may be more with more digging. I would have to agree with Jclemens to keep John Cavil. I am uncertain about the others, but I am not a fan of doing mass nominations with AFDs (I have done in the past admittedly). I feel that this would be best going one by one or doing two to three per nomination instead of this) But that is just my advice for that part so feel free to ignore it. It will take a lot of time, but it can be rather difficult to respond to multiple articles at once and fairly determine either way about each individual one. And to echo Jclemens point, just because an article is really bad shape, it does not mean that is a reason for deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion, as these mass nominations are not helpful. These characters may or may not meet the GNG, but I think individual attention is warranted. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bbb23 as a creation by a blocked user. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centauro comunicaciones (Dubbing studio)[edit]

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

Lack of independent reliable sources to attest corporate notability either in English or in Spanish or Portuguese. Google search shows the usual vanity hits, social media, this article, and its Spanish equivalents. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. czar 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. czar 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. czar 07:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:Bbb23 has deleted the article as per banned or blocked user. Should this AFD be closed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Kemball-Cook[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. All trade papers. scope_creep (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't look like this guy is notable at all. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not suggesting that this is anything more than WP:TOOSOON, but the article says, "Laurence has generated media interest for his invention, including press coverage by Forbes,[6] Wired,[7] BBC,[8] CNN,[9] The Times[10] and The Huffington Post.[11]". There is also a book by Richard Branson in the WP:BEFORE D1 profile. Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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