Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 9

Guide to deletion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. With the exception of a few non-policy-based comments from editors with limited history, unanimous agreement to delete, in this well-attended debate. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Communists for Kerry

Communists for Kerry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails to establish notability -- even more so than the recently-deleted related article The People's Cube; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube. -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KAP03^{Talk • Contributions} 23:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete no significant coverage in RS, fails WP:ORG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Yet another example of how low the notability threshold used to be. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Lacks notability, hence article is unsourced. TFD (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment The purges will continue until Thoughtcrime is eradicated. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to add sources to the article if you believe sources exist. This kind of spurious comment helps no-one. These discussions are based on Wikipedia's policies, not some sort of Communist-era "purge" mentality. Find substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources, add references to them to the article, and the article will survive this Deletion discussion. If you care enough about this article to call it's deletion a "purge" then surely you won't mind putting in the work. I look forward to reading the article when you're done. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - classic agitprop, but non-notable and un-funny satire. Thousands of American service members and millions of Iraqis were killed due to snarky crap like this allowing the re-election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, although this effort didn't even get lasting media coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I find it appalling that you let your personal political preferences cloud your judgement on this matter. As a long time Wiki reader and donor I see this once great vault of knowledge slide into political activism, for example read this. I must admit the page needs editing but this discussion seems to have less to do with quality standards and more with members' political agendas. Powderday (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Powerday: It's not about politics, it's about Wikipedia policy. If you, or anyone else, can find multiple independent reliable sources that establish notability for this article's subject, per WP:NOTABILITY, it can be kept. If not, not. So far, no-one seems to have been able to do so. -- The Anome (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

The post I was responding too was clearly politically motivated, I'm sure you'll agree? The sources should be updated, on that you are right. Powderday (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Bearian, although CommunistsForKerry did not receive sustained media coverage as it disbanded after the 2004 election, and thus in some metaphorical sense fails WP:BLP1E, I would suggest that Atbashian-the-biography could pass WP:BLP1E as well as WP:GNG for his agitprop artistry -- in addition to CommunistsForKerry, he was also the main person behind ThePeople'sCube, and has some law-enforcement-related news coverage related to protesting Hamas. See my specific suggestion below. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rename to Oleg Atbashian, leaving a redirect from Communists for Kerry to the newly-created Oleg Atbashian#Communists_for_Kerry, and merge the sources from The People's Cube into Oleg Atbashian#The_People's_Cube (admins can recover them from the recent AfD which sparked this current AfD as well as from [1] or Draft:People's Cube or CSD'd draft[2] by Karunamon). The existing Communists for Kerry article already mentions that most of the group behind CfK immediately migrated to TPC website -- they are not the same topic, but they are closely linked, and both are projects founded and/or led by Atbashian. He has also been in the news more recently, for freedom of speech-related altercations with the campus police at George Mason University. I would remind all and sundry that WP:BLP applies to all pages, and that Special:Contributions/Dr.Oleg.Atbashian. was a bluelink in 2014 (though possibly WP:DBTF applies), so if you disagree with me that sufficient sources exist to satisfy WP:GOLDENRULE with respect to Atbashian and his activities, please remember to be clear that yours is a policy-motivated stance. Rather than dump refs here, I will put them into Draft:Oleg Atbashian. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your inpot. The merge is a good idea. I have created a new draft for the "the people's cube' wiki entry, and thought about merging it with Atbashian's own entry, but I'm afraid the result will be too large an article. Can you comment on this? The draft is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:People%27s_Cube or click here. The draft is currently awaiting final review.Powderday (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere, but just for the record WP:SIZERULE says that we will have no trouble, and if we do someday, WP:SPINOFF is the solution. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment For every article, Wikipedia has a page that lists all Wiki-pages referencing that article. For CFK, that page has 56 incoming links. Wikipedia articles that link to Communists for Kerry includes 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry. Shouldn't the existence of 32 legitimate Wikipedia articles referencing Communists For Kerry serve as proof of notability by default? Besides, deleting the CFK page will lead to all those other Wiki articles to have invalid links, hurting Wikipedia's own reliability. Rewriting history is tricky that way. I would understand if Wikipedia was printed on paper and had a space limit. Deleting electronic articles has no such justification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atbashian (talk • contribs) 18:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC) — Atbashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, there is such a thing as WP:NOTPAPER. No, the number of wikilinks to the topic is not crucial, that just means cleanup work (but it is easy work because the what-links-here tool gives the todo-list). The key here is WP:GOLDENRULE aka WP:GNG, which your sources provided below will help answer, thank you. Remember to be WP:NICE to your fellow wikipedians, and to WP:AGF, we are here to help if we can, so please remain calm and friendly. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete @Atbashian: Firstly, the number of links an article is not a valid argument to prevent the deletion of an article. See WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:ARBITRARY. Secondly there is no "significant coverage" of the subject from reliable sources that are independent from the subject meaning it does not meet WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 20:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per all the reasons given above. Safiel (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability proven without a shadow of a doubt by extensive news coverage by leading mainstream publications like the BBC, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, The Scotsman, New York Post, MTV, Fox News, NY Newsday, etc. Below are some links to the 2004 media coverage of the Communists for Kerry group, activities, and interviews I was able to recover from the archived pages. The coverage on left-wing blogs is also extensive (mostly relating to the Fox News controversy), as well as an entertaining thread of comments on John Kerry's own blog. I'm also including a few expired links at the bottom, for historical purposes. The sheer volume and the prominent names should speak for themselves. I only wish I had compiled this list sooner.  :: — Atbashian (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:07, January 14, 2017 (UTC).

list of CommunistsForKerry sources, last updated Saturday January 14th

Newspapers, magazines Jane Roh (2004-10-03). "Some Voters Still Flip-Flopping". Fox News. And then there were the pranksters in the [presidential debate] audience... the Communists for Kerry (who, in fact, are rooting for Bush) and the Billionaires for Bush (who, of course, are Kerry supporters). 'We're trying to get Comrade Kerry elected and get that capitalist enabler George Bush out of office,' said 17-year-old Komoselutes Rob of Communists for Kerry. 'Even though he, too, is a capitalist, he supports my socialist values more than President Bush,' said Rob. Asked several times if his group was a parody, Rob insisted with a straight face that the Communists for Kerry were not, in fact, supporting Bush. ...[FOX News] Editor's Note: In a version of this article that was published earlier, the Communists for Kerry group was portrayed as an organization that was supporting John Kerry for president. FOXNews.com's reporter asked the group's representative several times whether the group was legitimate and supporting the Democratic candidate, and the spokesman insisted that it was. The Communists for Kerry group is, in fact, a parody organization. David A. Fahrenthold (2012-10-08). "Sandra Fluke brings her testimony across the nation". The Washington Post. ...That hasn't abated [the media circus and social media circus created in the aftermath of Limbaugh insulting Fluke], even months later. 'In the past, people would be ashamed of taking such a stand. But she continues to be self-righteous about it... that's what makes her funny,' said Oleg Atbashian, a Florida-based conservative whose Web site, thepeoplescube.com, came up with popular caricatures of Fluke: She's a slot machine, she's a belly dancer, she's got a collection of condom wrappers. Atbashian says he tries not to let the jokes get too sexual. But he hasn't removed a commenter's post that shows Fluke facing a long line of male suitors, plus a horse. 'I also don't want to limit people too much,' he said. After Limbaugh's remarks, Fluke... Michael Powell and Dale Russakoff (2004-08-30). "200,000 in N.Y. Protest Bush". Washington Post. ...organizers were critical of Kerry for voting to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq. And Kerry might prefer to eschew the four-member 'Communists for Kerry' contingent, whose placards advocated a 'France First!' foreign policy. Kevin Anderson (2004-08-29). "'Anybody but Bush,' cry NY marchers". BBC. Across the street from Madison Square Garden, Bush supporters held signs mocking the protestors with slogans such as 'Communists for Kerry' and chanted, 'Four more years!' The protestors shouted back, 'Four more months!' A sign at Madison Square Garden welcomed the Republicans... Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45279-2004Aug29.html BBC - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3610896.stm Fox News - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134268,00.html New Republic - http://web.archive.org/web/20050212031017/http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=tjsWvZIeCFWyba7Vsn1Huh%3D%3D MTV - http://web.archive.org/web/20041209102506/http://www.mtv.com/chooseorlose/headlines/news.jhtml?id=1490667 The Atlantic - http://web.archive.org/web/20050309084918/http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200408u/cd2004-08-31 The Scotsman - http://www.scotsman.com/news/world/100-000-march-in-manhattan-against-bush-1-551163 Washington Monthly - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_10/004823.php RTN - New York Russian language television - a one-hour interview with the group - the video itself exists on a VHS tape, this is a link to screenshots - http://web.archive.org/web/20050313210211/http://communistsforkerry.com/GPU/viewtopic.php?t=201 Deadlinks to Newspapers New York Newsday - AM NY - http://www.nynewsday.com/media/acrobat/2004-10/11104636.pdf New York Post - http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/27854.htm Knoxville News Sentinel (USA today) - http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/politics/article/0,1406,KNS_356_3149379,00.html Palm Beach Post - http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2004/08/30/w1a_BINO_0830.html Blogs: Daily Kos - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/2/161034/211 John Kerry blog - http://web.archive.org/web/20050221092342/http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/003051.html Free Republic - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196054/posts Newshounds - http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/04/thats_no_excuse_jane_roh.php http://web.archive.org/web/20090708234256/http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/02/porn_stars_for_kerry_next.php http://web.archive.org/web/20090708234426/http://www.newshounds.us/2004/10/02/tell_fox_the_news.php http://www.americanpolitics.com/20041003punditpap.html http://www.eschatonblog.com/2004/10/fox-news-snookered-again.html http://www.atrios.blogspot.com/2004/10/fox-news-snookered-again.html http://www.jimgilliam.com/2004/10/foxnewscom_is_totally_out_of_control.php http://web.archive.org/web/20060521183623/http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=179175;article=4613;title=Indypendent;pagemark=20 http://web.archive.org/web/20041216071031/http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/archives/00000729.html http://web.archive.org/web/20080918093719/http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E1106178607/index.html http://web.archive.org/web/20050312163629/http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/10/2/171426/661 http://web.archive.org/web/20041028211356/http://www.gisleson.com/blog/index.php?id=495 http://web.archive.org/web/20061116174930/http://www.smithersmpls.com/2004/10/fox-news-continues-to-blow-any.html http://web.archive.org/web/20130112214104/http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2004_09_26.html#001775 Deadlinks to Blogs http://www.haloscan.com/comments.php?user=atrios&comment=109674625370586683 http://www.apavlik0.tripod.com/sunsetblog/control.comment?a=add&entry_id=466974 Adjusted the indentation, and collapsed the list-of-URLs, for ease of readability when people visit the AfD thread. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The sources for my proposed upmerge to Oleg Atbashian are somewhat more extensive than the just-CFK-specific reflist shown above, because Atbashian has been involved in CFK in 2004, the spinoff effort TPC since then, and a legal altercation in 2016 with GMU. Please see Draft_talk:Oleg Atbashian for a detailed ref-by-ref analysis. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep- The Communists For Kerry group, CFK, is referred to in notable, independent publications and news outlets as listed above. The personal views of politically motivated editors must be set aside or WP is destined to sink into obscurity. As a user and donor I don't want to see that happen! Snit333 (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"As a user and donor" - how is that relevant? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry Exemplo, I'm afraid you are taking this all too personally. By saying "as a user and a donor" Snit333 probalby wanted to show his attachment and fondness of Wikipedia. Your reply to this well meant comment is - in my opinion - unnecessary spiteful. Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Let's keep wikipedia neutral, please, or it will los all credibility. The sources mentioned clearly show Kommunists for Kerry was notable at the time of the street protests against G.W.Bush. It's inherent to "elections" that - once the elections are over - the protest groups / PACS / volunteer / campaigns lose a big part of their relevance and notability. I do not see why this page should be deleted and the relevant "Billionaires for Bush" page, which is actually just the same type of group (but left wing) can stay on wikipedia. If - in 30 years from now - people want to learn something about the way political campaigns were organised and the street protests they encompassed, finding entries like the ones I mentioned above (or the -hopefully soon to be reinstated- people's cube entry) will give relevant insights and information. Also, I think that sensitive political entries or discussions like the above should be seriously debated by senior editors to avoid activism by politically motivated wikipedians.Powderday (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I can't speak for other editors, but I can categorically say that my participation in Articles for Deletion discussions is in no way motivated by political views, "spitefulness" or bias. My !votes are based purely on Wikipedia's policies, nothing more, and if anyone believes otherwise then it's not my fault. If it seems like I've commented on a lot of articles that lean one way or another politically, then that too is not my fault - suggesting that any editor has a political motivation or bias when all they are doing is participating in one of Wikipedia's standard processes undermines whatever arguments people are trying to make. Let's keep these decisions strictly about policy and refrain from casting aspersions, direct or implied, about other editors.Exemplo347 (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, my apologies. But as you can see in someprevious comments there are some among us who have trouble with staying neutral. I'm very grateful for your pointing out the obvious faults in the references and structure of the previous draft, and I made an effort to change them myself today, I hope with good result.Powderday (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I hope your apology also extends to the post you made on the talk page of another editor about me. Yes, I did see it, I just chose not to rise to it. You may want to evaluate your own neutrality on this subject. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My apology extends to every single form of injury, any of my comments ever inflicted upon you. And that is no melodrama: if you are indeed commenting on the TPC site and the CFK site out of concern for the quality of WP, then I find that commendable. I think it's amazing how much work is done by people like yourself. But the comment on the other user's talk page (i'm not sure which one?) referred not to you explicitely I presume? I just found it "strange" that the reviewer (not you) of my TPC draft kept ignoring my request for detailed comments on the new references and edits to the page, so I had no idea how to improve it. That's why I asked help other reviewers who "passed by" on the talk page.

• Comment It has been proposed to merge Oleg Atbashian (as an author) with Communists for Kerry and the People's Cube. But I'm afraid the new "people's cube" draft will be too big to just add as a sub-page to this new merged entry. I have no experience with merging, is there someone with advice on this topic? Thank you very much for your input everyone, because of all the comments the new entry is already significantly improved!Powderday (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Not seeing the significant, in-depth, independent coverage. Neutrality^talk 02:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality, can you take a look at reorganized sources for my proposed BLP-rename? I am working to see whether there are additional WP:RS with depth, but at present I believe that distinct topic is coming close to passing WP:GOLDENRULE (depends on whether the listed barelinks have depth). Also ping The Anome who originated the AfD, can you please comment on the sources thus far w.r.t. the rename-slash-upmerge-to-BLP-topic idea? Some reasonable depth on Oleg and his CFK and TPC groups does exist (albeit relatively minimal in each instance) of detailed set of factoids published in newspapers and on television during 2004, 2006, 2012, 2016, including a bit of international coverage with less depth (but helps improve breadth-of-coverage methinks). 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Prithee WP:MERCY... since I believe the usual seven-day-WP:TIAD-thing is approaching, however, myself and another wikipedian or two ARE still working on verifying several barelinks e.g. The Atlantic for applicability/depth/etc... if the closing admin believes that work has a shot at success, either for retaining Communists for Kerry or perhaps renaming/merging it into Oleg Atbashian the group's leader, I would request relisting. I expect to be finished in the next three days, or four, with digging for sources. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from creating your draft anyway, even if this article DOES get deleted - so there's no reason to ask for this AfD to be delayed. Carry on with your draft. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable parody eluding to a non-notable, (now defunct), group whose best hope was mere agitation, (unrealized).--John Cline (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of sufficient sources. Flag me if anyone finds multiple WP:RS that focus on this topic in a substantive way, rather than the brief mentions I'm seeing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:31, 16 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 delete. I see consensus to delete Ornella Sizzi, but limited discussion on the others. With respect to them, I'm afraid a separate AFD may be needed. Go Phightins! 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ornella Sizzi

Ornella Sizzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to be a run-of-the-mill academic, failing WP:NACADEMIC. The society she is a member of does not appear to be a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC {I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be part of an advertising campaign on wikipedia created by the WP:SPA editor related to The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons and its members:

• Thomas Lyons (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Hugo Ribot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 'Weak delete part of a group of advertisements, and could be deleted on that basiss, but he has a citation nrecord with two publications having been cited over 200 times (and then 70, ,...) DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- Sizzi is a very well known Italian Surgeon, though not as well known in the USA. Perhaps article would be better in Italian version? Weird to go after this article thats been here since 2010 right after she died. Is notable contingent on survival? drewmonda (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2017 — drewmonda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I see you've twice created the advertorial article on the society and created the articles on several members. What's your connection? Toddst1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Delete per nom, with concerns that the article's creator is associated with The Society of Elite Laparoscopic Surgeons. All edits suggest promotional intent and WP:COI. 2601:188:1:AEA0:38D2:7218:4D4F:2BC5 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, lacks coverage in reliable sources. The external link that appeared when I reviewed the article is for a doctor who's unrelated to Dr. Sizzi (I have commented it out to make it invisible). The remaining reference is not about Dr. Sizzi, it is an article she co-authored. PKT(alk) 17:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Subject fails notability guidelines by lacking independent coverage in reliable secondary sources.--John Cline (talk) 22:04, 16 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 speedy delete. WP:SNOW borderline WP:G3 Mkdw ^talk 17:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

United Conservative Party (Australia)

United Conservative Party (Australia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No claim to notability, no sources. Could be five blokes in a shed for all we know (and probably is). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, isn't this Cory Bernardi's group? If so, might still not be notable but isn't just five blokes in a shed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC).
  • Nope. Cory Bernardi's group is "Australian Majority". The founder of this lot (in Parramatta) has no google hits for anything at all (apart from social media accounts), and their address is a serviced/virtual office. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    • In that case, Delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC).
• Delete A Google News search of '"United Conservative Party' Australia" returns exactly zero stories about this party. It is also not shown as being a registered political party by the Australian Electoral Commission or NSW Electoral Commission. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:HOAX. --Nug (talk) 09:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Could not find anything at all anywhere to indicate any hint of notability. Just a bit TOOSOON perhaps !? Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Several news outlets have recently profiled the Cory Bernadi-led conservative movement, none of them have mentioned this party. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and everyone else; nothing verifiable here, let alone notable. Frickeg (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant hoax. Mélencron (talk) 02:07, 15 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 delete. WP:SNOW joe decker^talk 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lewis Rose

Lewis Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable Chief Executive Officer of BakerStone International fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete. It's a common name, so it's not easy to find anything about him at all. He appears to be marketing an interesting gizmo to cook pizza on a barbecue or something. Neither that nor his previous work come anywhere near notability. The promotional screed written by his cronies or employees or whatever was mostly unreferenced, and the few references were mostly press releases (it is now much more concise than it was before). There doesn't appear to be any in-depth coverage of this person in anything resembling an independent reliable source. Fails WP:BASIC, fails WP:ANYBIO. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• DeleteUtterly no evidence of notability under any standard. Eggishorn (talk)14:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. no evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable head of a non-notable company. There's nothing here that constitutes a claim of notability, none of the sources here are in-depth references about him and I couldn't find anything more in a search of available sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - a non-notable chief executive of a non-notable company with ten employees. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Falls short of WP:ANYBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Non-notable ceo. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:22, 16 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Zafar Polvonov

Zafar Polvonov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully professional league and does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 19:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete As per others in that they don't meet WP:NFOOTY and I haven't seen any other WP:SIGCOV to warrant a stand alone article. Mkdw ^talk 17:48, 15 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bláthnaid McKenna

Bláthnaid McKenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per OTRS guidelines, if a subject desires an article to be deleted, we offer to make the nomination, without any opinion on the merits. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Article doesn't demonstrate coverage that would seem to meet WP:GNG/WP:SIGCOV guidelines, and subject doesn't seem to inherently meet WP:ANYBIO criteria (significant award, enduring historic record, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not significant enough to mean we absolutely need the article, so we should follow the subjects wish and delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I disagree with the policy being so over-broad, but agree with its application here. The subject is barely notable. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete under WP:BLP1E and a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Mkdw ^talk 17:49, 15 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rui Miguel Silva

Rui Miguel Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Does not meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. XXN, 21:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete A quick WP:BEFORE search reveals very little. Considering their career has never resulted in any major wins aside from OnlyOne Racing, which I'm not even sure is a fully professional series, I don't believe they meet WP:NMOTORSPORT or WP:SIGCOV. Notability tag since 2008 does seem to indicate that their career has more or less run its course. Mkdw ^talk 17:52, 15 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: Notability sufficient to pass WP:AUTHOR #3 has been established. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Krykorka

Ian Krykorka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. XXN, 21:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note, however, that an IP added a list of book reviews in "real" journals sufficient to establish notability about 2 months after the notability tag was added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I added 2 reviews of his books to the half-dozen already in the article, which needs editing into more normative format. Widely-reviewed books confer notability on an author. Keep and remove the obsolete notability tag.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, plenty of reviews of his books, some listed in the article, BookList - "Direct references to the baby Jesus make this a good choice for observant Christian families, while families seeking multicultural holiday stories will appreciate this non-American view of tradition." and Horn Book (as usual, short and sweet:)) - "The mixed-media illustrations are striking, but the artist's technique makes both interior and exterior scenes appear windy--perhaps in keeping with the long-winded text." also reviewed Carl, School Library Journal - "Consider Silver Moon only where folk and fairy tales are very popular.", and ForeWord Magazine (may not be useable?) - "While the vocabulary choices are too sophisticated and the sentences too long for beginning readers, the storytelling is rich, humorous, and easy to follow when read by a parent or teacher." also reviewed Silver Moon. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Well-reviewed author, meets WP:NAUTHOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Keep It's not the ideal case of WP:NAUTHOR but they seem to just squeak by. Mkdw ^talk 17:53, 15 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Fadi Haddad

Fadi Haddad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Disputed notability since 2008. Several references were provided, but the subject of this article is not described in details in these sources, it's only mentioned in pass, and this does not guarantee notability. XXN, 21:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - (music) video directors are run of the mill - we almost always delete such BLPs. That this article is poorly sourced is further argument. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete music video directors are inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:19, 17 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Moths of Whitley County Indiana

Moths of Whitley County Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article seems highly unnecessary and out of keeping with other taxonomic lists. Whitley County is a small area, whereas lists such as this only tend to cover entire countries, with the exception of Moths of Riccarton Bush, which is notable in that entomologists have famously studied there. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Too small-scale, and completely unsourced. Presumably someone's private mothing list.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• That was my thought, too. It does just seem like a list of moths in his area. I daresay WP:NOTWEBHOST applies. Delete 15:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Unsourced and likely either original research or plagiarism if a source exists. Too small a scale to be encyclopedic to boot. Plantdrew (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of WP:LISTN being met Spiderone 21:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep I am new to Wikipedia and am not sure how to reply correctly. I added sources. There is no easy way to find the moths of a certain area, range maps are often vague and not always accurate. I hoped this would allow one to more easily see what species have been found in this area by including my own observations along with the other sources. I would not expect you to be able to tell that there are some important records here of rare species because you are probably not knowledgeable on topic of moths. I am still planning to add more data and sources if it is not deleted. Hope this helps - User:Mothman27, creator of this article. —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Firstly, welcome to Wikipedia! I recommend you read a few guidelines, firstly, WP:OR, which explains in detail why original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. As such, you cannot add your own observations to an article, because all material must be backed up by reliable, published sources. Therefore, whether your article contains records of rare species or not, you cannot include that information unless you have a reliable, published source. Secondly, Wikipedia has a long list of notability guidelines for different types of article. If an article's subject fails to pass the relevant notability guideline, its article should not be created (in the vast majority of cases). The general guideline is found here: WP:N (you'll find links to other notability guidelines here) and I especially recommend you read WP:LISTN (list articles). Please also take a look at WP:NOT for "what Wikipedia is not". -- Pingumeister^(talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: I agree with above comments from Pingumeister and others. The list is not a good fit for Wikipedia--too narrow in scope and (I suspect) too much original research. The data presented could be useful but would really work better as part of an interactive database, not a static list in an encyclopedia--take a look here [[3]].Glendoremus (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment I read the recommended pages. I feel that WP:LOCAL applies to some extent. If someone in my area is interested in finding what moths live here but they are not a bug expert, they would not know of the bug websites and they might try Wikipedia. It is a fairly comprehensive list and I am not done with it. Would you recommend I submit ALL my sightings to BAMONA and then source every page for each species? Should I add all my sightings and sources to the List of butterflies and moths of Indiana page? Or create a 'Northern Indiana Moths' page to make it more general?Glendoremus, are you recommending submitting all my sightings to BAMONA and not recording them on Wikipedia at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman27 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I understand your sentiment, and while it is good of you to be looking for a place to directly record your sightings, Wikipedia is not it. I appreciate your boldness (see WP:BOLD) and you have perfectly good intentions, but in order to stick to its principles, Wikipedia is built upon core content policies, and in this case, verifiability and "no original research" are breached. I have no doubt that you are updating Wikipedia with information that is true, but your data is not verifiable. If you post sightings to some other user-edited site and cite that site here, that is still dodgy – user-edited sites are not usually verifiable and are usually considered unreliable sources. What Glendoremus is suggesting is that you post your sightings to a different website which is more suited to the job. Of course, I have no intention of discouraging you from contributing to Wikipedia. Continue to be bold, but learn about the policies and guidelines as you go! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 13:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. The question of weather this list might be useful to some is of no relevance. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a field guide, database of statistics, scientific journal, etc. Wikipedia cannot and should not serve as a repository of all data in existence. County level searches can be performed on existing sources such as BugGuide, BAMONA, and other alternative outlets. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:22, 14 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 Snow keep, no chance of success. Fram (talk) 09:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Luxembourg women's international footballers

List of Luxembourg women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unnecessary list... Also no notability has been established. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

List of Austria women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Croatia women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Czech Republic women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Estonia women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of France women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Germany women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of England women's international footballers (alphabetical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of New Zealand women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Pakistan women's international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all. People representing their countries at full international level in a widely-covered sport. Bizarre nomination. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Yeah ... I don't understand this at all. What is the difference between this and the equivalent pages for the men's teams? Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Why is List of Luxembourg international footballers worth keeping, but not a women's list? Froztbyte (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all. As creator of one, and per all above keeps. Sort of list I use all the time, contains quick reference and additional information to categories and concerns notable subjects. To nominate under premise 'notability has not been established ' is spurious given that every person listed nominally passes notability criteria under WP.footyn - certainly on the lists I use. Also fail to see why list these and not the equivalent men's lists; except the almost certainty that the men's list nominations would likely be snow closed ClubOranje^T 05:30, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep all A list of notable individuals representing their nation at the top level for their sports. All could easily become featured lists, and aid navigation with the categories, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 08:11, 10 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Men's 100 metre backstroke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a remarkable nor notable tournament. Also notability is not stated and it relies on rehasing one reference. I support a deletion or a merge. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also nominating these following articles for the same reasons:

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's 100 metre freestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Swimming at the 2009 Maccabiah Games – Women's 400 metre individual medley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Maccabiah Games is quite notable tournament, being the third-largest sporting event in the world behind the Olympics and the Asian Games. [4]. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete – notability of the Games is dubious. Even more dubious is dedicated articles for results and even more dubious still is specific dated results for certain events. Sports spam that doesn't warrant its own article. Laurdecl ^talk 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How can it be dubious, if this is third-largest sporting event in the world? Look here: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And it's enough to look at the article about games Maccabiah Games Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not the the "third largest" sporting event in the world. The Olympics (both editions) and the World Cup are in the top 3. This event is a minor event with a lot of non-notable athletes. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I am basing on the article Maccabiah Games and it's references. Also, World Cup is a one sport event. Here we're talking about multisport event. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep all per Arthistorian1977 - the games are well-established and well-cited, and medal wins often cited in the media and especially in obituaries of former athletes. Whether it's the third, fourth, or fifth-largest sports competition is irrelevant. It's big is why it's notable. That it's Jewish is important. As a procedural matter, a whole-scale discussion is inappropriate, and could risk a dangerous precedent. I might favor the merger of one or two of these stubs, but I'd prefer a separate discussion at a merger board. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep This is a notable competition, based on the breadth and scope of reliable and verifiable sources, as cited above by other editors. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Alansohn (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep The tournament is clearly notable, nominator's statements nonwithstanding. The entire basis for this AfD is irrelevant, and as such should be closed. Smartyllama (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep/Merge - looks suspiciously like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I would support a keep although I am also open to a merge. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:38, 16 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 speedy delete. Deleted as copyvio. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Arthritis in terms of ayurveda

Arthritis in terms of ayurveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is an essay, not a Wikipedia Article. It's unreferenced so as far as I know, it's based on Original Research. PROD was declined by page author. Would support a WP:SNOW delete. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete with fire - To their credit though, it may not be OR. At least some of it is copyvio from https://www.cdc.gov/arthritis/basics/gout.html, and http://ayurveda-foryou.com/treat/fibromyalgia.html, and... at this point I'm going to nominate for speedy. TimothyJosephWood 21:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Works for me! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - if the speedy is contested, very much WP:NOT. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Per the copyvio concerns. Hardly an article by any means, really. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:55, 10 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 redirect to Law enforcement in Monaco. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Police of Monaco

Police of Monaco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is already a more developed article on this subject at Law enforcement in Monaco. Deprodded without rationale. I would say merge, but there's no cited material here to merge into the other article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Law enforcement in Monaco seems a nice solution to me. There's nothing much to merge, no. Yintan  21:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Law enforcement in Monaco. Maybe the picture could be used, but there's not really any content. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect or merge per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 16:29, 12 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 merge to FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

2002 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships

2002 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

2007 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 FIRS Men's Inline Hockey World Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge World Championships of a sport are deemed notable. However maybe merging into one article with results would be more appropriate? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Limited merge of any non-trivial details not already included to FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships. The rest is over-detailed cruft. The articles are unreferenced so anything that is merged will need sources found. Template:FIRS Inline Hockey World Championships is looking like it could do deletion too so I've nominated that. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 16 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of wars involving Nepal

List of wars involving Nepal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing of value here. WP:LISTCRUFT plain and simple. No sources, no linking templates (unless you count {{help me}}) Was de-proded without explination. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Though rudimentary and WP:IMPERFECT, it appears to be a bona fide member of Category:Lists of wars by country and as the main list for, you guessed it, Category:Wars involving Nepal. Keep Through his mistaken use of the talk page template {{help me}}, the article creator appears to have been asking for help with his list. Of course, what he got was something very different. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong keep - clearly notable subject, current state of article is adequate, no reason to delete that I can see. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:LISTN [10][11] and Category:Lists of wars by country shows that a consensus that this type of list is useful is well established. Lack of cited sources is surmountable, and lack of templates (?) is not a rationale for deletion, nor is the inexperience of the article creator. – Joe (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: this is standard type of article, see for example: List of wars involving Spain and many others. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a lot of work, but that's not the point. The subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - The Himalayan Tibet/Chinese/Indian/Nepal interface has produced a larger array of military history relevant subjects than are here - needs keep and further development JarrahTree 01:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep -- A harmless little article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay -- not a policy based argument for deletion. The topic is likely widely covered and cited by other encyclopedias and meets our criteria for WP:LISTN. Mkdw ^talk 17:55, 15 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

James Patterson (ice hockey)

James Patterson (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG per WP:ROUTINE sources. No longer meets WP:NHOCKEY standards. Yosemiter (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Doesn't meet NHOCKEY and did not find any relevant sources that would meet GNG. Admittedly his relatively common name may mean there are some sources buried deep within a Google search, but given a fairly unremarkable career that doesn't seem too likely. Rlendog (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - I tried to find any criteria to keep the page, but there aren't any I could find. He has been inactive for a while, and a Google search found nothing natable. Bill McKenna (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 11 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kord (Greyhawk)

Kord (Greyhawk) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge to List of Greyhawk deities. Minor D&D deity with no non-primary, reliable sources. The only info currently present on the master Deity list is just the link back to this page, so a merge is appropriate. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect optional - No non-primary sources. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advertising, not even round-about advertising written by brand-loyal fans. Grayfell (talk) 10:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. I am not convinced by Grayfell's worries. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:59, 14 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 merge to List of Greyhawk deities. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 22:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Al'Akbar

Al'Akbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. BOZ (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into List of Greyhawk deities. Guinness323 (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Greyhawk deities. Yet another minor D&D deity with no reliable, non-primary sources. He already has a fleshed out section in that list, so a redirect is sufficient. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as above, unless some reliable third-party sources can be identified. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge - No independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 16 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Benimaru Itoh

Benimaru Itoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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)

I'm not seeing much independent notability for being an illustrator, outside of a primary sourced exhibit announcement. Pinging video game Wikiproject as they might find better notability for his work.AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not WP:GNG, nor qualifies under Notability > People > "Creative professionals" (WP:ARTIST/WP:CREATIVE). Appears only in listing-type sources; could find no major independent source with more than passing mention. DonFB (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable WP:BLP appearing in listing-type sources and the article fails the WP:GNG. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, leaning towards weak delete - I found this link which isn't exactly significant coverage, but it is something, and I have a hunch that there could be coverage in offline sources. Searching his name in Japanese is difficult as my Japanese is not at a high level of fluency, but what I could find isn't promising. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:09, 10 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Peter Gastis

Peter Gastis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the AISL might be fully pro. However, this has not been established in the eight intervening months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - fails NFOOTY.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 12 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Dino Perri

Dino Perri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that the AISL might be fully pro. However, this has not been established in the eight intervening months. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 10:12, 11 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oman at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games

Oman at the 2006 FEI World Equestrian Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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 [12], "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) 18:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete – useless sports spam and statistics that will probably never be looked at by anyone. Laurdecl ^talk 09:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Also looking at some of the individual pages, many of the results have not even been tabulated. Ajf773 (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• No objection. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Smartyllama (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom Spiderone 14:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:30, 16 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 merge to Philippine men's national basketball team major competition results. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Philippines at the FIBA Basketball World Cup

Philippines at the FIBA Basketball World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced and the information is already found at the Philippines men's national basketball team page Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge or redirect - it is almost certain that a Pinoy or Filipino will be seeking this information, using this search term in English Wikipedia, because basketball is essentially their national sport (even the smallest barangay has a b-court and it's obsessively watched on national TV) and English (or Taglish)is becoming the lingua franca there. Bearian (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Merge to what article? Redirect to what article? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'd go along with a redirect to Philippines men's national basketball team#FIBA World Cup or National team appearances in the FIBA Basketball World Cup#Comprehensive team results, or 1954 FIBA World Championship, when they earned the bronze. Another action would be to merge to one of those three, with a special mention of Carlos Loyzaga. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect Per Bearian. It's a plausible search term, but isn't notable in its own right. Smartyllama (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to subsection per above. Laurdecl ^talk 01:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge into Philippine men's national basketball team major competition results. The article about the national team is already too long and has too many tables. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 16 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:04, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools

Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable bible school lacking non-trivial support. Per the talk page, "The purpose of this Wikipedia Page is to inform the public about the Christ For The Nations Association of Bible Schools. Currently the organization has 64 Bible Schools around the world and by creating this page and listing the various schools, it will allow the schools to create their own Wikipedia pages by creating links to their own websites." A google search on the name provides little support for the organization. Appears to be more of an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Promotional article written by an editor with a blatant COI. No apparent coverage in independent sources. – Joe (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. First off, it's poorly sourced - every citation is to their own website or a privately-published paper source that has no ISBN nor a ISSN. Secondly, it reeks of soapboxing - the part about rejecting government accreditation especially. Finally, its purpose seems to be to use a non-sectatarian private charity as its own sectarian religious website - folks would surely reject their demands to put free adverts on Girl Scout cookie boxes. The same idea applies here. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Bearian (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails notability test. I couldn't find anything about it online apart from its own site, nor about the schools listed in the "Listing of schools" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Potential Keep -- An article on an association of 64 Bible Schools, some of which are locally accredited, stokes me as likely to be notable. The fact that the mother school has not got such accreditation in US does not alter that. However this is a bad article, and the lack of articles (at least linked ones) on any of the other schools makes me wonder if any are really notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I agree with Bearian, noting on the talk page, the main author of the page doesn't convince me otherwise. I also agree that the article potentially could be kept if the issues were dealt with, but I'm not sure they can/will. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:30, 16 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 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

ThreatConnect

ThreatConnect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources are clear published and republished PR advertising and there's simply no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else especially since policy WP:NOT applies. When an article has to overblatantly focus with advertising information like this, it shows there's simply no genuine substance. Worse, it emphasizes it since not only the fact this is barely 5 years old, but the sheer fact the sources are literally mirrored PR. Even with the now made improvements, it's still not enough to satisfy our pillar policies for advertising. SwisterTwister talk 18:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - please look it up, WP:N seems to be clearly given here. E.g. see these: [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], ... --Fixuture (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Half of those were simply announcements, event listings of how they were involved and other trivial matters; there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else simply because of news stories. Also, which actual policy would allow article's existence alone? SwisterTwister talk 22:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - clearly notable and passes WP:ORG: plenty of non-trivial coverage in available sources. Also passes WP:AUD, with coverage from national and international sources, including The Guardian, Washington Post, Fortune, Bloomberg. Stickee (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. They have been involved in such extremely important recent events, that this article makes sense, despite most sources not really being substantially about the company. We can make exceptions when it helps the reader. DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 15 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

ConsumerTrack Inc

ConsumerTrack Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Clear advertising as not only is the history showing clear COI advertising but everything here is naturally only targeted advertising with published and republished PR announcements, and that's exactly what searches found thus nothing to sensibly accept in our policies against advertising or against any company webhosting at all. Especially when an article goes to the lengths of sourcing each sentence and paragraph with a PR source, simply to make it seem as if it's acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Purely promotional. Nothing notable about subject. Created by SPA account. As nom stated, most of references are press releases or don't mention subject at all. New searches produces nothing new. CBS527^Talk 18:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Too promotional to keep. Any borderline notability should await a non-SPA interested in the subject. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 15 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Assumption (film)

Assumption (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, no reliable second-part or third-party coverage, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 16:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete for now due to lack of coverage from multiple reliable sources. Rue Morgue highlights the movie here, but it seems mainly promotional rather than a review per se. If this film is released, and there are reviews from reliable sources, then the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. This doesn't seem to have significant coverage in reliable sources. I agree that the Rue Morgue source looks more like promotional material than anything else. If the article creator wanted, we could move this to draft space, where it will be relatively safe from deletion. It's possible this film will satisfy our inclusion criteria later. All these articles about Brian Patrick Butler look poorly sourced and probably too soon. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:28, 10 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewilding the gut

Rewilding the gut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Google search shows that this phrase is found in one book, and as such does not satisfy general notability. Promotional intent of an article is not taken into account in deleting, and this article appears to be promotional, but notability is considered and is missing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Per NEO, unless there's some significant usage somewhere, but I'm not seeing it. TimothyJosephWood 16:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete A really interesting phrase, I'd guess that it will gain some use as time goes on. But I don't see that the notability of the phrase is supported by any of the citations given. I could find the phrase used by Sonnenberg et al in their 2014 paper published in Cell Metabolism on "Starving our Microbial Self" [23] and once by the same authors in "Diet-induced extinction in the gut microbiota compounds over generations" that was published in January 2016 in Nature [24]. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - only used once ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Provisionally delete. All the comments above are about whether the expression "rewilding the gut" has sufficient use, but that is not really the right question to consider. That expression is evidently a neologism which has had far too little coverage to in itself justify an article, but it is a mistake to assess this deletion nomination on the basis of whether that expression is notable: we should assess it on the basis of whether the concept referred to by that expression is notable. (We have an article Julius Caesar because the man referred to by that name is notable, not because the name itself is notable.) In other words, the right question is not "Does the expression 'Rewilding the gut' have widespread coverage?", but "Does the process of process re-introducing lost and introducing new micro-organisms into people's guts have widespread coverage?" The best I can say about that is that (1) the article at present and its references don't provide evidence that it does, and (2) I have not been able to find evidence that it does anywhere else. Most of the references, while covering various issues relating to loss of gut micro-organisms, do not actually mention the idea of adding back lost micro-organisms. At best, the article "The ‘hygiene hypothesis’ for autoimmune and allergic diseases: an update" by H Okada, C Kuhn, H Feillet, and J-F Bach, briefly mentions the idea, but gives no substantial coverage of it. There is therefore no evidence that the concept satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, I am marking my "delete" as provisional, as it is possible that there may be substantial coverage, which is not included in the article's references and which have not been found in searches because they are referred to under other names, not "rewilding". If there is significant coverage, I hope it can be found before this discussion is closed, but if there isn't then the subject does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability standards, and the article should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: fecal microbiota transplant might be at least an example of "rewilding the gut". --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:TNT and JamesBWatson. It's a notable topic, just not called this weasel term. Yes, microbial repopulation, fecal microbiota transplant, and the hygiene hypothesis are real. This concept itself is fringey, although gaining some scientific acceptance. However, this is not the crap (pardon the pun) we want on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete, superseding my "provisionally delete" above. This essentially duplicates the topic of the article Fecal microbiota transplant, and actually could be speedily deleted for that reason, in my opinion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:53, 12 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Revation Systems

Revation Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Plain language version: this company is not "notable" in the Wikipedia meaning of the term. As a consequence, it is not a topic suitable for inclusion. Notability should be demonstrated by reliable sources, independent of the subject, describing it in detail (those are cumulative conditions), but I did not find any.

Wikispeak version: fails WP:ORG and GNG. Best I found is [25] and businesswire is (from my experience) little more than a press-release megaphone.

This was prodded and deleted, then restored by Ad Orientem (ping) following a help desk request to keep working on it. I think a restoration to the Draft: space would have been better, but since I see no source at all I do not think even that is warranted. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Unambiguous advert. Nothing to support wp:GNG or wp:CORP. DonFB (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I was planning on sending all three of these articles to AfD on Wednesday or Thursday at the latest barring a level of improvement that I think very unlikely. There are a lot of things you can fix, but notability is not one of them. It's either there or it's not. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable spam. Same for the similar two articles, if someone nominates them here. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• I am taking the liberty of copying the below comment/question from the talk page to here. The user is a new editor and self identified COI. See this discussion on my talk page. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

So none of these article count as cited sources for notability?

1. RCR Wireless News: November 22, 2016: NFV, SDN deployments driving cloud security to session-oriented awareness http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161122/telco-cloud/nfv-sdn-deployments-driving-cloud-security-session-oriented-awareness-tag2-tag99

2. RCR Wireless News: November 17, 2016: Security remains significant hurdle for industry cloud efforts http://www.rcrwireless.com/20161117/telco-cloud/security-remains-significant-hurdle-industry-cloud-efforts-tag2-tag99

3. Health IT Outcomes, July 6, 2016: Healthcare Security Depends on More Than File Encryption http://www.healthitoutcomes.com/doc/healthcare-security-depends-on-more-than-file-encryption-0001

4. Heath System CIO, June 29, 2016: Daryl Kallevig, CIO, Riverwood Healthcare Center, Chapter 2 http://healthsystemcio.com/2016/06/29/daryl-kallevig-cio-riverwood-healthcare-center-chapter-2/

5. Healthcare DIVE, July 26, 2016: 7 strategies for making the most of a lean workforce http://www.healthcaredive.com/news/7-strategies-for-making-the-most-of-a-lean-workforce/423274/

6. Tech World News: May 5, 2016: Aging at Home, Part 1: Home May Be Where the Technology Is http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83454.html

7. Tech World News: May 6, 2016: Aging at Home, Part 2: Some Tech to Watch Over Me http://www.technewsworld.com/story/83467.html

8. Patient Engagement HIT, April 29, 2016: Easier Appointment Scheduling Can Boost Patient Access to Care http://patientengagementhit.com/news/easier-appointment-scheduling-can-boost-patient-access-to-care

9. Computer World, April 20, 2016: New CMS initiative a pivotal point in primary care: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3054778/healthcare-it/new-cms-initiative-a-pivotal-point-in-primary-care-market.html

10. Healthcare Informatics, March 22, 2012: Versatile Communication Platform Helps Foster Collaborative Care http://www.healthcare-informatics.com/article/cloud-based-communication

11. TMCnet.com. April 8, 2008: The State of Minnesota Deploys LinkLive for 12 Contact Centers and Agencies http://www.tmcnet.com/enews/e-newsletters/Customer-Interaction-Solutions/20080408/24767-state-minnesota-deploys-linklive-12-contact-centers-agencies.htm

Melissa8051 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Melissa8051: an important thing to note is that even one good source is much better than a lot of disputable ones for notability. Here, trusting DonFB's analysis above, the only real source is an interview with the CEO. Interviews, even in reputable sources, are usually in the grey zone when it comes to evaluating notability. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Ad Orientem Contining the discussion, I appreciate all of the feedback from everyone on this page. In response to your feedback and clarification I have found some more "notable" articles that talk about Revation Systems in depth within the past years. Considering interviews, I have also found an interview in which CEO Perry Price talks about Revation Systems in depth in the beginning of the interview. I hope these are more of what you are looking for and these can be used. If notability is achieved, please advise me on where to go from there. Thank you.

1. The Entrepreneur Way: 3 Things That You Should Have Done 60 Days Ago with Perry Price Founder of Revation Systems http://theentrepreneurway.com/podcast/211-3-things-that-you-should-have-done-60-days-ago-with-perry-price-founder-of-revation-systems/ (Interview with CEO Perry Price)

2. PR Newswire: January 5, 2012: Revation Systems Launches an Accessible Virtual Care Solution for Healthcare Organizations http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/revation-systems-launches-an-accessible-virtual-care-solution-for-healthcare-organizations-136734838.html

3. Business Wire: March 1, 2016: North Memorial Health Care Partners with Revation Systems to Improve Customer Engagement and Population Health Management http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160301005037/en/North-Memorial-Health-Care-Partners-Revation-Systems

4. Tech{dot}MN: April 23, 2012: Revation finds a revelation in healthcare http://tech.mn/news/2012/04/23/revation-systems-linklive-healthcare/

5. PR Web: April 2, 2014: Revation Systems Acquires North Light Software to Simplify Community Care Delivery and Coordination http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/04/prweb11728895.htm

6. EWorld Wire: April 7, 2008: Revation Systems announces The State of Minnesota Linkage Line Network Deployed LinkLive for 12 contact Centers and Agencies http://www.eworldwire.com/pressreleases/18353

7. MobiHealth News: September 29, 2011: Revation pushes unified communications on consumer-grade devices http://www.mobihealthnews.com/13502/revation-pushes-unified-communications-on-consumer-grade-devices

• • Also, it might be advisable for the other two pages to be merged into this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_LinkLive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revation_Communicator

Thoughts? Thanks!

Melissa8051 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

They are all public relations/promotional outlets. Note the "PR" in the "prnewswire" and "prweb" internet addresses.

For example:

"Get Big Publicity with a PRWeb Press Release A PRWeb press release can help your business or organization get reach and publicity on the web across search engines, blogs and websites in just a few simple steps."

And:

"Please visit http://www.revation.com/knowledge to learn more about the Knowledge Base product and its impact on both payers and providers alike within the healthcare industry." -- Businesswire.com

The Wikipedia "notability" guideline explicitly mentions "press releases" as sources that fail to meet requirements. The outlets listed cannot be considered "independent of the subject" in the sense intended by Wikipedia instructions. They are promotional.

Every business has its ups and downs, its failures and successes. The uniformly boosterish, cheerleading coverage in the cited articles demonstrates the reality that these outlets are nothing more than vehicles to help their subjects drum up business.

Notability guidance also talks about a subject having "attracted attention." I suppose it could be argued that the company has attracted the attention of these promotional media outlets by virtue of its presence in the business world and in its particular niche. The clear promotional intent of these outlets, however, belies the idea that they are independent reliable sources.

At present, the Revation Systems article is tiny--what Wikipedia calls a "stub," as seen in the label at the bottom of the page. Perhaps it could be further argued that the article is so small that no harm is done. Every "stub" label, however, encourages editors to expand such articles. In the case of what I believe to be an obvious advertisement, that's a problem. DonFB (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- A7 material which also manages to be spammy. Wikipedia is not a place to host materials of promotional nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Both the sources provided and those found searching for "Revation Systems" are mostly trivial mentions that does not live up to WP:CORPDEPTH. Thus, failing WP:NCORP, this is a WP:DEL8 case. — Sam Sailor 16:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Lean to delete. Certainly the articles on individual products should go first: Revation LinkLive is nothing but a release history, and Revation Communicator not even that. Almost all the sources are corporate promotion. W Nowicki (talk) 21:34, 16 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Phoeniciology

Phoeniciology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be a made up word. I can't find any reliable sources using it to discuss the topic it claims to define. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm leaning towards delete here, but I found a link to some archaeology website that shows what this word means and how it's used. May be helpful. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts
  • @UNSC Luke 1021: The text on that page is almost identical to the article, so either our article is a copyvio, or "Greatarchaeology" copied Wikipedia. I'd say the latter is more likely since it doesn't seem like a very reputable website, and our article has existed in more or less the same state since 2006. – Joe (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Despite the word 'phoeniciology' actually existing, I can only find one website that uses the term without directly sourcing or copypasting from the Wikipedia article itself. Not worth keeping something when we can't vouch for it's existence. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Note that none of the other articles at Category:Area studies by ancient history are not verifiable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Phoenician Studies - no need to delete a long-standing page and its history which refers to a notable, existing thing under the wrong name when no article under the right name exists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as a non-notable neologism. I can't find any mention apart from Wikipedia mirrors. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete 0 hits on GoogleScholar. It's not a notable field, yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment @Chris troutman: It isn't that it's not a notable field, it's that it already has a name, eg Oxford University's "Oxford Centre for Phoenician and Punic Studies". You'll get a very large number of hits from reliable sources with "Phoenician studies". I wouldn't support it as a redirect either. It's a made up word which a search strongly suggests didn't exist until this article was created. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as a NEOlogism. Phoenician and Punic Studies is certainly a field of scholarship, but I am not sure that it needs an article, as distinct from ones on the history and/or archaeology of the area. The difficulty with it, is that the cities settled by Pheonician colonists were urban and often remain so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 15 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Connecthings

Connecthings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article was recreated after G11 speedy deletion. It is still a G11 promo violation but a second speedy deletion is not permitted so we have to go through this process. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment A WP:BEFORE search delivers nothing more substantial than PR pieces in "trade magazine" websites and a few mere mentions in other sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The page contains verifiable facts in a neutral point of view as per the guidelines cited on Wikipedia. If there are any changes that you can suggest so that it doesn't appear to violate G11, please advise and it can be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.poole (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:SNOW - Purely promotional, no encyclopaedic content to salvage and no notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete and Salt as SNOW given the fact this has been deleted 3 times in the last few months for both advertising and copypasted website information and the current is no different at all, our policies against advertising are violated here but it's worse if it continues when it's clear such advertising (regardless of whatever or whoever) is mirrored. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Promotional piece -reads like a company press release not an encyclopedia article. Article created by WP:SPA whose only edits involve this article. A number of sources listed in article don't mention the company at all. CBS527^Talk 00:04, 15 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 speedy close. This is a discussion forum for articles only, sorry. Please take the matter to WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I am the Sea

I am the Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Redirect no longer needed, page created for the song itself. The album should not be the destination anymore. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:09, 9 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jeet Gian

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Jeet Gian
• Articles for deletion/Jeet Gian (2nd nomination)

Jeet Gian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG not clear why this was closed as speedy keep by non admin so bringing back here for discussion. Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO with lots of unreliable, self-published, and user generated sources. The tags were added by GSS-1987. I was the one who started and closed the first AfD as "speedy keep" per a request on my user talk page. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it was too soon to close an AfD without taking third opinion and doing own research becasue at the time you gave up the article was included plenty of self-published, usergenerated and unreliable sources that's why I added inline cleanup tags. The author has removed few such sources but some of those are still there. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments/QA by the author

Hi Theroadislong and GSS-1987 @GSS-1987: @Theroadislong: I am the author of the page Jeet Gian. This is my first article that I have posted on Wikipedia. Jeet Gian is an Indian writer/ author of two successful novels. Both the novels have featured in top ten fiction books by Financial Express as well as Crossword best seller lists. His second novel was launched by three Indian Bollywood star directors - Farah Khan, David Dhavan and Sajid Khan and the book was widely appreciated and accepted. Jeet's wiki page provides more information about him to general public searching information about him. Which is why the earlier notice of 'page deletion' was requested to be removed and was removed. Now with regards to references and links - I have already informed GSS-1987 that I have removed all the 'self-published sources' from the wiki page. I have even removed all the 'unreliable sources' links from the page. There was only two such marked sources which I believe are NOT unreliable. These are third party published interviews of the writer Jeet Gian. Hence I do not think they are unreliable. I have requested GSS-1987 to remove the 'unreliable source' tags from these two references links or he can inform me and I can remove these tags. I trust you both are now clear that this page should NOT be marked for deletion. If it's ok with you then please remove this notice from the page. If you still need any answers, please write to me and I shall clarify. Thanks! Regards Pri D (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC) @Pri D: Please read WP:IRS to know why I tagged those references as unreliable and self-published. If you need the explanation for each link please do not hesitate to ask. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Hi GSS-1987, Thank you for the link! I read it :) Please note that I have deleted all unreliable and self generated sources from the article page. I just wanted you to see that two sources 12(an interview of Jeet Gian by Al press) and 13(and an interview of Jeet Gian by Ebooks India ) are reliable sources and third party verifiable sources). IF you also believe that the sources are good, please may I remove those tags of 'unreliable sources' ? Do let me know . Thanks Regards Pri D (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC) @Pri D: al-press.com is a questionable sources because I don't think it has editorial oversight and e-booksindia.com is a website where anyone can actually publish their own work. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Hello :@GSS-1987:, About Al press that's just your personal opinion. Even if you go on the current home page they have covered current news of importance. I think the source is reliable. The particular link that I have posted is visibly an article report about Jeet Gian's latest(at that point in time) book, which is relevant and reliable. About e-books India, they are an entity that helps authors learn how to self publish the writers' works/books. It is a place and platform where upcoming writers/authors can learn insights about publishing, tips on writing etc. Apart from this, if you see the link I have quoted is a clear interview by a reporter 'Hiten Vyas' and he has clearly interviewed 'Jeet Gian'. It is NOT something that Jeet has himself penned down about himself. Hence this particular link is also not 'unreliable' and is relevant. I request you to delete those tags about sources. Thanks! Regards Pri Pri D (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC) I think you should wait for a third opinion and I still believe above sources are not reliable including prsync and filmibeat. Thank you – GSS (talk|c|em) 12:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Hello :@GSS-1987:, Sure, I will wait. Thanks for your inputs! I shall also check prsync and filmibeat again. Thank you. Regards Pri Pri D (talk) 13:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC) =============== Hi Theroadislong @Theroadislong: As I have mentioned before, Jeet Gian is an Indian writer/ author of two successful novels. Both the novels have featured in top ten fiction books by Financial Express as well as Crossword best seller lists. His second novel was launched by three Indian Bollywood star directors - Farah Khan, David Dhavan and Sajid Khan and the book was widely appreciated and accepted. Jeet's wiki page provides more information about him to general public searching information about him on the web. I have now cleaned out the sources, added Jeet's picture and edited the content a bit on the page. Please request you to remove the notice of 'this page is considered for page deletion' from the top of the page, as this feels like we are discredting a published Indian author. Please do let me know if I can clarity anything for you. Thanks! Regards Pri Pri D (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC) It is not possible to remove the template please wait for an admin to review. Theroadislong (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Hi Theroadislong @Theroadislong: Noted your response. I have a couple of questions. It would help if you could clarify, since I am still new to Wikipedia and in the process of still understanding things. Thanks! 1. Are you not an admin? 2. How long does it usually take for an admin to review? 3. Can I write to an admin to review this sooner than later? Regards Pri D (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus. Common outcomes are that the article is kept, merged, redirected, incubated, transwikied (copied to another Wikimedia project), renamed/moved to another title, transcluded into another article (or other page), userfied to a user subpage, or deleted per the deletion policy. Theroadislong (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Theroadislong @Theroadislong:. Noted your response. I shall wait for some consensus. Thanks! Regards Pri D (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- too spammy to consider keeping. Not a resume hosting service either. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:47, 14 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kyle Gott

Kyle Gott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod deleted by creator, citing that he is the 9th most famous person from Iowa according to famousbirthdays.com

XFD for the same reason I prodded:

Non-notable YouTuber, entirely lacking in WP:IRS article bordering on promo. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 12:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete zero indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I don't believe that the single independent source, famousbirthdays.com, is a reliable source suitable for BLPs. The rest of the sources are YouTube videos and channels made by him and his wife. That's a complete SOAP and BLP violation without other sources. --Ronz (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

  This shows some of the general consensus to not use famousbirthdays.com in BLPs. --Ronz (talk) 00:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not seeing any evidence of notability in the article, and I have not found any in my (admittedly brief) search. I don't agree that this is a speedy deletion since there is a claim of significance. It does not have to be a claim of notability to avoid A7. 10 million youtube views is not enough in itself to convince me of notability, but I consider it sufficient as a credible claim of significance. Meters (talk) 03:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The only source I can find about the person (reliable or unreliable) is this Air Force post. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources and I am not finding anything beyond what was mentioned here. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's notability critera at present. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete I agree there doesn't seem to be anything about him independent of his own work. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:04, 14 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020

Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A man saying he will campaign doesn't mean there is already a campaign or that there will be one. There's nothing to write about. In fact, note that nothing in the article is about this supposed 2020 campaign. Largoplazo (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - The same thing happened last election, where he was '100% sure' he would run in 2016. He son passed away from cancer, he didn't run, and the world was shocked, anything can happen, so assumptions should not be made. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts

• Delete - I think it is too early for such an article as per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL Dunarc (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete when things are actually confirmed, we can have an article on it. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Biden only said that he "would" run in 2020, not "will". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep the coverage alone merits the article. Juno (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:CRYSTAL per nom. This subject doesn't even exist except in an off-handed comment Biden made on December 5 at an unrelated event, and a follow-up response that he'd like to run but he knows there's no way to tell how things are going to go in 4 years. This is the only real subject of this article: a single comment and follow-up question. The first 4 sources cover this same couple minutes with the press. A couple of the sources claim outright that he was joking. The other 9 sources are just older background, unrelated to 2020. --Closeapple (talk) 23:20, 15 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ibxtoycat

Ibxtoycat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable YouTube personality, as a search for sources only resulted in brief mentions in websites posting information about Minecraft, or him comparing Minecraft to other games. I couldn't find any coverage specifically about him. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Probably a delete. The WP:VG/S RS search engine drags up 4 hits, all of which at first glance appear to be passing mentions. --Izno (talk) 12:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

All of the gaming references and news sources I've found seem to source back to a single article on Kotaku.com, and even that is a passing mention. A YouTuber that is offhandedly referred to once isn't notable IMO. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk)

• Delete - Article subject is not notable. It also appears to be blatantly advertising the subject by including external links to both channels in the main description and not the infobox. Deletion is recommended per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTADVERTISING. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 14:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable YouTuber. TheDeviantPro (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per nomination. Sergecross73 msg me 15:41, 16 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 delete. No evidence of notability of this matchup as a rivalry. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lakers–Rockets rivalry

Lakers–Rockets rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The term rivalry is used trivially in sports when covering individual games. I could not find enough significant coverage that talks about the history of this alleged rivalry. The article has been tagged for WP:OR since 2011, and has only one reference to a stats site. —Bagumba (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep- This isn't some average meeting between two franchises. Those two teams met each other 8 times in playoffs and those meetings proved to have big impact on deciding championship campaigns. The Rockets have eliminated Magic Johnson in his prime two times and denied NBA with 2 additional Magic-Bird finals. On the other side Kobe Bryant had to eliminate Houston 3 times to get his rings and some matches are classics. All in all I say that 246 total meetings between two franchises and 35 matches in playoffs, with the score 5–3 for Lakers (that shows the rivalry is far from one-sided) is enough for the page to exist.--Woodmana (talk) 07:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Woodmama's well-defined reasoning (though I'm floored that there's no mention of the Rudy Tomjanovich/Kermit Washington incident that predates this article's timeline). Nate • (chatter) 08:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because two WP editors say this rivalry is Notable does not make it so. I clicked the links above and could find no Reliable sources indicating these teams' matchups are anything other than, well, two teams playing against each other for a number of years. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per Woodmama's excellent points. Lepricavark (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Three more sources have been added since I nominated the AfD, but unfortunately none of them mention the word rivalry in their text.diff Still, seems WP:IAR to support WP:OR that a rivalry exists is winning the head count.—Bagumba (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Lakers–Celtics is significant, but this is not. If there was a rivalry then there would be plenty of media coverage. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Not every NBA matchup is significant. Also eliminate many of the rivalries listed in National Basketball Association rivalries (Jazz–Rockets rivalry? Spurs–Suns rivalry?). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 10 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 redirect to Golaghat#Places of interest. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Golaghat Gymkhana

Golaghat Gymkhana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable club. Virtually zero hits on the search engines (except to the club's own website, and a single trivial mention on Books). Current sourcing consists solely of the trivial mention. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Oppose because Wikipedia is not based on # of search engine hits. The page has been updated with sources and it shows that the place has been mentioned in various travel journals, including this artcile in The Telegraph (an Indian national broadsheet newspaper). The current page in its structure is a credible Wikipedia article. AnjanBorah (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as clear A7 and G11 material and it's clear this is a miseuse of our policies as advertising, any article that cares to mention "amenities and services for people" is advertising. SwisterTwister talk 03:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep as the material in its present form contains objective facts - all citing sources thus, cannot be ruled as advertising! It may be improved further, but I had edited the page to keep it neutral as much as possible. Sorry, but the page informs about a historical building that has been featured in national newspapers, so advertising claim doesn't hold true. Only one line about a few of the facilities and that is again with sources, so that doesn't suggest or emphasise any pleasantness or attractiveness of the place or amenities and services for people. AnjanBorah (talk) 14:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Additional source, one of them is this article in Himal Southasian published by the not-for-profit The Southasia Trust from Nepal. Not advertising, as clearly the points cite sources. AnjanBorah (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

• Keep based on the sources - particularly, the substantial The Telegraph article, recorded entry to the travel portals (additional sources), besides the mention in the book Quit India Movement In Assam to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Rex86 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide or free advertising. One Telegraph article is totally inadequate. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete: Seems like a non-notable travel-industry business. Toddst1 (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• The rationale behind the proposed deletion isn't justified as the page is about a historic building estd. in 1910, that is commemorated as a heritage site by the citizens of that region. Similar articles on other Gymkhanas are in Wikipedia with a few to no newspaper sources that had passed WP:GNG and WP:NCORP norms in the past, thus, Golaghat Gymkhana doesn't seem to be an exception. E.g., Karachi Gymkhana (with just one source, the official website), Bengal Club (no reference at all), Lahore Gymkhana Club (with 1 newspaper source, and the reference to the official website), Bangalore Club (with no newspaper sources, just includes the official website, in addition to a book reference), Calcutta Club (with 1 newspaper source and the reference to the official website), Madras Club (with 2 book references), Hindu Gymkhana Karachi (with 2 book references), Gymkhana Club, Chennai (with 1 newspaper source and 2 references to the websites, one being the official website of the club), Jamalpur Gymkhana (with no newspaper sources, and only references are the club's 2 official websites along with another supporting website) to name a few...

• The page was initially tagged as a promotional material without proper due diligence, that was wrong to begin with, and then was reverted as I had revised the content by citing sources where possible. Later, the speedy deletion tag was again reinstated by another admin - SwisterTwister without any rationale just because the page had "speedy deletion" tagged initially, so it was a wrong review again. As promotion can't be reinforced because the page cites sources, the original reviewer comes back stating it as a non-notable topic, which isn't justified as when compared to a few other Gymkhana pages, Karachi Gymkhana in particular, Golaghat Gymkhana lists this The Telegraph article (a national broadsheet newspaper with a daily circulation of 4 million plus, much higher than the most of the Pakistani newspaper sources), sufficiently affirming that the place is notable, even though it is not located in a major metropolitan region of India; in addition to a book source. Another thing to be noted here is that the topics related to bigger cities or metropolitan regions would always have more print and electronic media coverage, so to expect premier newspapers to cover Golaghat (Assam) topics isn't fully justified, esp., in a developing economy where print and electronic media are still evolving and struggling to cover a broad spectrum of India topics, and have a long way to go. If Karachi being the biggest business centre and an important metropolitan region in Pakistan hasn't been able to attract newspaper houses to write about Karachi Gymkhana (which is historic place), let alone Golaghat. Thus, I standby by my proposition to qualify this article to be in Wikipedia because it about a heritage site in a small tea town that has successfully managed to attract newspaper sources, unlike metropolitan counterparts like Karachi that has the Gymkhana article without relevant sources. AnjanBorah (talk) 01:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Sources primarily consist of travel articles or about a previous gymkhana of the same name. Nothing in sources establish the building where club is located as historic or a Heritage site. CBS527^Talk 01:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect to Golaghat#Places_of_Interest. Doesn't appear to be notable. Not sure if this can be merged in the state/format that article is in. Adam9007 (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as spam; purely promotional article, thus WP:PROMO applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:13, 15 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Unsocial Jordan

Unsocial Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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)

Does not appear to be a notable wrestler or blogger; a search failed to find confirmation that he ever wrestled for Pro Wrestling Alliance (which is apparently an all-female wrestling organization), while the other organizations mentioned in the article do not appear to be notable either. Note that the claim in the article that he is married to Shazza McKenzie might be inaccurate, as searching for the two resulted only in an interview by McBlack of McKenzie. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

PWA Is A Male and Female Wrestling Company If You Look PWWA Is A All Female Company. Jordan Works For PWA, I Never Claimed He Was Married To (Shazza Mackenzie) I Just Said They Were Dating (and If I Stuffed Up Please Wait and I Will Fix That). It States On Both (Jodan & Mackenzies Facebook Pages That They Are Dating. https://www.facebook.com/chantelle.allison.98?pnref=lhc</ref> https://www.facebook.com/jmcteare?pnref=lhc https://www.facebook.com/chantelle.allison.98?pnref=lhc --Lil Jimmy

• • Well whomever listed her as "Spouse" definitly claimed they were married - that's kinda what a "spouse" is if you did not know.  MPJ-DK  15:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

References

• Delete Cannot find anything to remotely demonstrate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - I have not found any hits that would indicate notability.  MPJ-DK  15:28, 15 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanjib Sahoo

Sanjib Sahoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This biography reads like a résumé, and might even be an autobiography or paid biography. It started its history as a cut-and-paste job from another website. I don't believe the subject meets the the notability standard for biographies of living persons. – voidxor 07:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi... This is the editor of the biography. I am an amateur wiki editor who wrote this biography after meeting Sanjib at one of the conferences. It was partly to get familiar with wiki and partly because I was inspired by Sanjib and his transformational journey. Signed WikiContributorTH

@WikicontributorTH: I had previously asked your relationship to Mr. Sahoo on your talk page, and not gotten a response after waiting for over a year. So, thank you for explaining. Please note that this AfD is not a reflection on you as an editor, nor on Mr. Sahoo as a person. The issue I bring up is whether Mr. Sahoo meets the WP:BIO criteria for inclusion on this encyclopedia. Unfortunately, we cannot all have our own Wikipedia articles, not even everybody who has succeeded in the American Dream (as I realize Mr. Sahoo has). – voidxor 07:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Material related to WP:GNG looks like churnalism and corporate blurb. WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC).
• Delete as I concur it's clear advertising and I would've listed it for deletion in any chance I saw it given the blatancy here. The thinness of the awards simply show how there's simply nothing else. SwisterTwister talk 05:42, 10 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cornell Dubilier

Cornell Dubilier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No references, no reliable sources come up on Google. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Highbeam and other searches return information regarding a contaminated former site (e.g. EPA summary), which should be noted if the article survives. That aside though, I am seeing nothing beyond the level of routine announcements befitting a company going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 08:47, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – This is probably my fault. I created the article as a redirect to KEMET Corporation, which acquired Cornell Dubilier's foil capacitor business. I didn't realize that C-D continues on as a separate company. I would not object to deletion. We could consider restoring the redirect, but that wouldn't be exactly correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of current Indian Super League players with national team caps

List of current Indian Super League players with national team caps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please refer to WP:LISTCRUFT #3, #6, #11, #12; there is little to no prose nor is there any explanation as to why the topic is notable. Lists still need to meet notability criteria. Please also see WP:LISTN. Spiderone 10:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - this is, or should be, a fairly standard cross-over and certainly not LISTCRUFT. Article needs a better title though - shouldn't just be 'current' players, but all players who earned international caps while playing in this league.
• Delete. Unnecessary list. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep and rename Not WP:LISTCRUFT. Rename to List of Indian Super League players with national team caps as suggested or implied by GiantSnowman (unsigned opinion above). gidonb (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is it not listcruft? Spiderone 22:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete unnecessary sporting trivia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete This is not a notable topic. There is no evidence of other sources listing players this way. This is trivia. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Delete the Indian Super League is already somewhat of an all-start league where famous players of football as well as from India are invited to play. Almost every team is mostly made up of international footballers, to have a list like this highly redundant and does not serve any necessary purpose besides trivia. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:LISTN I don't see any coverage of "internationally capped players in the Indian Super League" as a topic. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 11 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Tajamul Islam

Tajamul Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable kickboxer. Does not meet WP:KICK. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment, so the WKF is not seen as a major kb organisation? Coolabahapple (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:KICK.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Article is about an 8 year old female kickboxer who doesn't meet WP:NKICK, WP:GNG, or WP:NSPORT. Success in junior sporting events is not generally notable, the notability criteria for kickboxers are obviously not met, and I don't think the reporting of results and upcoming events is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

OK (Album by Malique)

OK (Album by Malique) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NALBUMS. Uses 2 sources, one from the record company and another that is little more than a track list. Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Since that artist hasn't been established as notable, there's nothing to redirect to. Produced by a SPA. Should have been speedied under A9. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG & NALBUM. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - Fails [WP:GNG]]. Per nom. Google and NYT searches provides nothing to establish notability. CBS527^Talk 18:47, 15 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Koushani Mukherjee (actress)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Koushani Mukherjee
• Articles for deletion/Koushani Mukherjee (actress)

Koushani Mukherjee (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable Natureium (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - can't find evidence of notability Spiderone 20:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - there are some passing mentions in news articles. Might gain notability in the longer run, but definitely not notable now—UY Scuti ^Talk 15:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom.Not notable actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:29, 16 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool Clown Ground

Cool Clown Ground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable series; lacks significant coverage in reliable sources failing WP:GNG. A single mention in a reliable source does not establish significant coverage. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Sources are lacking, mainly social media. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Flashback Cinema

Flashback Cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

All the sources on the article are created by Flashback Cinema itself, there is no indication the organization is notable. John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: I am finding nothing beyond routine announcements of participating cinemas and particular showings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. There are some announcements from local newspapers, such as [26] from the Journal & Courier, but there doesn't seem to be significant coverage. I don't think event listings can really establish notability. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete just promotions and nothing else. Light2021 (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete The sources are not good enough - local sources announcing the release of movies. There is nothing about the organisation itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 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 delete. WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Olwen Kelly

Olwen Kelly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Trivial and unconvincing career with only 3 works so far and they aren't significant and that emphasizes it by the fact these said trivial works are her "best known" summarily, there's nothing fornpolicy-based notability. There's nothing to suggest otherwise as that would then be questioning our essential policies. SwisterTwister talk 22:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antepenultimate (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect to The Autopsy of Jane Doe, her only significant work to date. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 9 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

James Grant Group

James Grant Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable-- every reference here is a mere notice or mention. DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Probably delete. I tagged this for questionable notability a few days ago, but didn't nominate for deletion because of the Guardian article, which is in moderate depth and in an impeccable source. I don't see any other significant extended coverage. Does that one article satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH? I think not. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

It can be in exceptional instances, Whether it should be here is another matter. I think the interest of the Guaaaardian is because of the artists involved, not the firm. It talks about the sale of the group to a larger entity, the Formation Group, in 2008. In 2014 the group was apparently sold to another firm. Metric Capital Partners. It may since have been bought by yet another firm, according to ref 12 in the article. I do not think this transient independent notability justifies an article on JGG, but we should see if an article is appropriate for the other firms. DGG ( talk ) 16:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

That sounds sensible, DGG. I'd certainly have proposed redirecting to the parent company article – if there had been one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We can nonetheless still write one, or repurpose this, or do a draft version. Perhaps an editor who woould like to keep the material would be willing DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

• Do not delete. The notability of this article is unquestionable. The sources prove the notability through the Guardian, Bloomberg, Insider Media, Sportsbusinessdaily as well as other sources. Much of the reliable information/content for this page has been deleted. Reworking the page while adding content and information will improve the page. Doboscake15 (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

However, how is this satisfying our explicit policies about this?

• Delete as it is a fact what's listed here is simply published and republished announcements and PR, none of which will lend actual notability here, regardless if it was 100 of them. It's also clear there's a named mention for SONY and that itself will not establish automatic notability either. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. I see evidence that a certain PR company exists and has been bought and sold a few times. Not much else. Fails WP:CORP notability, and several of the client list sources (7 and 9 at least) fail WP:NOTINHERITED: evidence of scraping the web for dribs and drabs. - Brianhe (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete the page has more than one notable source including The Sun, and The Guardian. Notable consulting and talent agency that should 100% be a part of the encyclopedia.BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a very well-known talent agency. More significant coverage in Sunday Times,[27] Express,[28] (who note it is the biggest talent agency in the UK as judged by worth of clients), Guardian,[29] (again, who give some useful background on founding). Also some local news:[30][31]. Fences&Windows 11:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Sunday Times says it's a 100-person company. That's kind of thin stuff for Wikipedia notability isn't it? The Express bit seems to be presuming importance based on the client list, which is really close to the WP:NOTINHERITED line if not over it. - Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- spammy and no indications of significance or notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep: there are a number of independent sources that discuss the company and their clients, it is important to know the management of some of those clients. It manages a number of clients in the public eye (as proven by the sources, particularly as they're from credible publications and sources) and there is a want from a number of people to be aware of who manages said people and of the history of said company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sophiehe2011 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 16 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 speedy delete (G5) by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) GSS (talk|c|em) 15:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Dhanashree Ganatra

Dhanashree Ganatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: Non-notable singer and musician. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Keep: I have knowledge of third party, non-online news articles about the subject, starting 1980. As in the language of Marathi, I will need time to access, retrieve and translate all the information regarding the subject's notability. Please guide me on improving the subject's immediate notability. Your guidance is very much appreciated! Thank you! --Seadonkey1999 (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - No sign of notability or impact in the music industry. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep - I have added more detailed sources, including book ASIN codes, foreign language articles and interview references to the article to signify notability. References are either about the subject, mention the subject within a collective of other people mentioned, include the subject's performances on broadcast television or have the subject listed in the credits. Seadonkey1999 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin. User:Seadonkey1999 has voted twice (I have crossed the duplicate vote), is the article creator and 39 out of 43 edits on the article have been done by this user. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
  • So sorry, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) , I was not aware users could not vote twice. I apologize for my multiple edits on the article, I added references and sources as I found them. Thank you for your help! New Years wishes to my fellow Wikipedians! Seadonkey1999 (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:37, 9 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Kamonnawin Inthanuchit

Kamonnawin Inthanuchit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think the subject passes WP:PROF based on the information in the article, and the sources given don't look like the kind needed to prove that the subject passes WP:BASIC. I couldn't find any other likely-looking sources online. (Contested PROD.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. According to GS he is reasonably well cited for someone who only got a PhD five years ago, but the numbers aren't a convincing pass of WP:PROF#C1 in a high-citation field like engineering. Can't find any evidence that the subject passes any other criteria of WP:PROF, or sufficient sources to pass the GNG. – Joe (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Slightly borderline, but on balance, agree, does not pass PROF or BASIC. DonFB (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete. Off to a good start but still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:31, 11 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Scott C. Dayton

Scott C. Dayton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sad, but I don't think that this is notable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 08:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, a sad fact, but lacks notability per WP:Memorial. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete -- a WP:BIO1E situation; very little of substance on the man himself. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 10 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) DonFB (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Joey Julius

Joey Julius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

His eating disorder hoisted him a little above the routine. But I think it's probably insufficient to justify an article. DonFB (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

NOTE: User:DonFB is the editor who nominated the article for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Kingfisher (talk • contribs) 05:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Zeke, the Mad Horrorist, I'm new and I don't understand how this works, but is there a way to include this in some sort of addiction area, not just sports? Thanks The Kingfisher (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm using a program that makes sorting discussions into dedicated topical lists a lot faster, and having checked again - because "addiction" was not a key word that came to mind as I was looking for categories to sort this discussion - I can't find such a list. However, listing discussions the way that I do it, and the way that others do it, does not mean we're listing them in WikiProject areas; it merely means these discussions are being reposted into pages that are just reorganized versions of the main AFD page, with only certain discussions included. I recommend finding addiction-related WikiProjects and leaving a note that this discussion is going on & that you would like others to provide input. Cheers! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean like a Talk page of an addiction subject? Thank you. The Kingfisher (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I should say a page like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Addictions and recovery. Whether this article fully fits the bill as one within the scope of that project, I cannot say; all I am doing is providing tips when asked. From there, you might be able to find other pages to post to. I recommend keeping it simple and only posting to a few - three, tops; that should be sufficient to get people aware of this discussion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 02:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there a template that I should use? The Kingfisher (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

All you really have to do is just post that this discussion is going on. Be sure to include a link to this discussion, of course. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 01:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot get to this until tomorrow, but I will outline with dozens of internationally respected reliable sources, as to why the article should stay from two points: sports and eating disorder. The Kingfisher (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Strong keep The editor who nominated this AFD did not give any policy violations. The reason is because there weren't any. This article meets all Wikipedia new article criteria, specifically WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:V, and WP:RS. The article would have been borderline, had it been simply about Joey Julius the football player. However, following the uniqueness of his eating disorder revelation, along with the international news that followed, it more than surpasses all required policy for a new article. User:DonFB's only argument for nominating this AFD was, "I think it's probably insufficient to justify an article". I think that an editor who nominates an AFD should do more than simply slap a template on an article, and at least bring one policy violation. The Kingfisher (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I myself have no opinion on whether the article should stay or go. We tend to sort all AFD discussions regardless of whether articles get thrown out. Good luck! Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 22:50, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Iglesia ng Dios na Buhay kay Cristo Jesus

Iglesia ng Dios na Buhay kay Cristo Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Web search turns up nothing except the church's own web site and Wikipedia mirrors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Subject is particularly not notable. Xeltran (talk) 12:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete, I don't see anything under its acronym, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Question -- This is described as a denomination, which would normally mean that we would keep it. It is currently such a poor article that it is impossible to know its significance. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Without references, there is no way to know if it is even real. It could be the creation of someone with access to a web server. I suspect that it is likely to exist, but we would have to verify that somehow. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:44, 16 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Janea Padilha

Janea Padilha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence this individual has attracted significant attention other than PR puff pieces written about her promotional book. Stephen 05:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: No independent third party reviews, Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep When I log in to Wikipedia today I see a banner tag for "The woman you never meet" and then immediately across this blatant example of widening the gender gap. The subject is a pioneer of women's cosmetics and notable enough for the NYT. Andrew D. (talk) 08:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Prominent mentions in multiple publications, published book, originator/popularizer of a procedure. -- Fuzheado | Talk 16:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• keep no wp:before a simple google news indicates multiple reviews of book. [32]. and nytimes [33] Beatley (talk) 17:54, 10 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 redirect to Deryni novels. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dhugal MacArdry

Dhugal MacArdry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Deryni novels. Shouldn't be a separate article, but full of material that might be useful for editors later to expand other articles on the topic so the history should be kept. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect per Wugapodes. Likely to be of interest to readers who have heard the name, as the page has a nontrivial number of views, so not worth total deletion. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 00:01, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, or Merge to a new article, "List of major characters in the Deryni series" to complement the existing List of minor characters in the Deryni series. DonFB (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Redirect/merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. An element from a fictional series spanning a score of books and running for nearly 50 years. Even a cursory review of ISFDB listings would show a significant quantity of reviews and criticism of the series. There's even running, right now at tor.com, an extensive analysis of the series and its characters (more than a year of weekly installments, and not even half done!) by the notable writer/academic Judith Tarr, which itself cites commentary on the series by Ursula LeGuin. Since the nominator has admitted their practice of noncompliance with WP:BEFORE, their opinion should be given little or no weight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The series is no doubt notable, but is this individual character notable enough to merit their own article? A search for "Dhugal MacArdry" on tor.com doesn't return any results (but for the series there are many). I agree that the series is notable and that the character should be given coverage, but I'm not convinced this character individually merits an article. What are your thoughts on the suggestion that List of major characters in the Deryni series be created to house this and similar content? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:11, 16 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 delete. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Shmuel Breban

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Shmuel Breban

Shmuel Breban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources in this article are not enough to pass GNG for this comedian, and my search on Google did not show up any sources to pass the general notability guidelines either. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 06:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:06, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Lizzie Clachan

Lizzie Clachan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable, fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage JMHamo (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable theatre designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep She has done the set design for several notable performances at notable theatres. Her work has received critical attention. Her art as a set designer is profiled at length in Exeunt Magazine. Passes CREATIVE. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I've cleaned up the article, added sources (some are behind paywall, but not all are) and started a list of her significant work as a set designer. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Megalibrarygirl, who has done an excellent job in demonstrating notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Reiko Senou

Reiko Senou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

(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)

Working voice actress, no sign she passes either WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Was de-prodded with the following rationale: "Improving; I object because the Chinese Wikipedia has the best Japanese celebrities and she has one". However, that addressed neither of the above two concerns. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Was originally going to argue that the voice of Lucy Ricardo is presumably important to the history of Japanese voice-acting, and just hard to look up because of the language barrier, but then I decided to go take a spin with Google translate and check. I stand by the original argument, but Reiko Senou is not the original Lucy Ricardo. That's ja:桜京美, about whom we should but seemingly do not have an article. --erachima talk 10:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete not seeing much as starring role except for Mrs. Pepper Pot. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete For once the English article contains just as many roles as the Ja.wiki age, which makes this a lot easier. I can't see anything suggesting notability by our standards, although I'm open to changing that view if information develops. The deprod rationale is poor even when making some sense of it - the existence of articles on other wiki's has no bearing unless they contain information of use to this discussion.SephyTheThird (talk) 17:00, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

List of Sureño Cliques

List of Sureño Cliques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD  · Edit AfD  · View log  · Stats) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article should be deleted as it is WP:LISTCRUFT. It satisfies definitions #6, #11, and #12. KAP03 (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination, and I would also add definition #8 from WP:LISTCRUFT. Wikishovel (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Unencyclopedic list. Possibly WP:NOR as well. Ajf773 (talk) 21:08, 12 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Wight Trash

Wight Trash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

this page appears mostly to be commercial promotion WP:G11 and also questionable on notability WP:A7. The skateboarding activity merits a small reference in passing on an island page, not a whole page; I have added a reference to Culture of the Isle of Wight IanB2 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. IanB2 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete per OP.74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Nothing is here! Only exist to promote itself as a directory Light2021 (talk) 04:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, as the OP I too support speedy delete. I did nominate the page for the speedy deletion process originally, but it was rejected as the page had been through that process once before (which for some reason didn't result in deletion). The page is just commercial promotion, is 'quiet' apart from the creation edits, which appear likely to be from the enterprise itself. I have already edited a short reference to its skateboarding team into the sport section on the island culture page. IanB2 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - violates WP:Promo Rogermx (talk) 18:58, 14 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (album)

The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails any form of notability. The album was a demo recording for a band that would later become notable. Delete leaving no redirect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merge into a discography page or section on the artist page. Basic discographical information - that is, information about the artistic products of musicians, such as names of songs and albums - is inherently encyclopedic. It doesn't need to have a stand-alone article, and perhaps this one didn't receive enough critical attention to merit it, but there is no good reason to "delete leaving no redirect" for something that is reasonable to include on the encyclopedia somewhere. Chubbles (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Given eventual notability of the band, and the usefulness of the track listing to readers interested in this subject. Circumspect (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not a criteria for inclusion at WP:NALBUM or even WP:GNG. We are not making a fan site for the band, but an encyclopedia of notable subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:19, 9 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 delete. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

José del Barrio

José del Barrio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Majority of article is about venture funds, equity, growth rates, business models, selloffs. Very little about man himself. Fails WP:BIO. What references there are are in context trade papers which discuss his business. Article created by SPA account. scope_creep (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete -- not a resume hosting service. A highly promotional article on subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 14 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

6ix (producer)

6ix (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable music producer. This page not only is not supportable by non-existant reliable sources, but is also written like an advert. Fails GNG. Delta13C (talk) 11:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - He appeared on these websites here and here which are pretty good websties for a producer. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - Agreeing with JustDoItFettyg. JayPe (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Those sources are not enough to generate an article of a person who has passed notability guidelines. Please see WP:MUSIC and WP:TOOSOON. The article must be based on multiple independent sources that cover the subject in-depth. I am not seeing any mainstream coverage or a substantial amount of coverage in niche but reliable sources. Delta13C (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable per WP:MUSIC Laurdecl ^talk 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete as nothing for genuine substance and the sources offered are not the expectations of meaningful improvements, the article has nothing else convincing and there's no inherited notability from others. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 15 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Jetboy (band)

Jetboy (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear notable. Most news reports are only passing mentions. Does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Darylgolden^(talk) Ping when replying 11:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - Listed in Larkin, Colin (1992-01-01). The Guinness Encyclopedia of Popular Music: Farian, Frank to Menza, Don. Guinness. ISBN 9781882267026.. Biography and album reviews on AllMusic. Two releases on major label MCA will likely have had contemporary reviews. Υπογράφω (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The lack of sources is troubling. First person interviews don't qualify. Entries on allmusic and The Guinness Encyclopedia do not necessarily reflect notability per wikipedia standards and need to be assessed on a case by case basis. However, having multiple (2) releases on a major label, having their music used in major motion pictures, and albums reviewed in credible/non-trivial publications indicates this band passes muster per multiple WP criteria. Because of the weak sourcing I could have just as easily ivoted Weak delete, but I think the subject is deserving of a wikipedia entry, it just needs someone to do the leg work to dig up the stronger additional sources. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Gregor Rom

Gregor Rom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet the WP:NRU criteria i.e. is not in a professional club not played for a high performance union national side or appeared at a major international competition Domdeparis (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: There are many photos by him in relevant international press and media. As central elements. If the media product "photo" is the same like "text" he is often "recited". Worldwide. Moppel123 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Some of the photos are references in the articel. Some more: [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51]... Die Zeit, one of the most important newspaper in Germany, the University of Hamburg, the Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg for example published his photos under his name. Moppel123 (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment please read WP:GNG that should help you understand how to prove notability. Domdeparis (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Absolutly. What I said: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." The media (notability newspapers, universities, blogs, articels) are reliable sources and independent of the subject and have editorial integrity. The coverage (the publishing of his photos) is absolutly significant. There are hundreds of publications of his works. Alone in the internet. The publications are independent of him. And the significant publication of photos are no different like publication of articels. Or other works. We agree? Moppel123 (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about it? When is a photographer notability, which work are used worldwide in media absolutly independent of him? Hundreds? Thousands? Or millions of uses and namings? Where is the borderline in your opinion? Moppel123 (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Please read WP:ARTIST this should answer some of your questions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't have a opinion? Please, don't play ping pong. I asked you. Not the wikipedia. Moppel123 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And it's not all. There is also the 1st-league-rugby. Amateurstatus in Germany - so it's not a hard fakt. But a soft fakt it is. How many soft fakts it needs? Moppel123 (talk) 10:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I have already stated that I believe there is nothing in the article that supports his notability. I have explained why he doesn't meet the notability as a rugby player which is the main claim in the article. if you believe that he meets the GNG or Artist criteria then I suggest you add sufficient information to the article to support this claim. I'm afraid I do not know what you mean by soft or hard fact/fakt. Please read the different pages that I have pointed you to. If you need more help writing a biography please read WP:Biographies of living persons. Domdeparis (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I changed the AfD from "games and sports" to "biographical". Moppel123 (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. This person is not notable as an athlete or as a physician or as a photographer. The argument that having photos published with a credit line somehow confers notability on a photographer is absurd. If that was the case, then every working press photographer would be notable. They aren't. I have written several biographies of photographers. They become notable when in depth articles are written about them and their work, or book length biographies, or when their work is exhibited by major museums, or when they win major awards. That does not apply here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Clearly failing all criteria of WP:ARTIST and have nothing to support notability claim per WP:BASIC. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:38, 10 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Steve O'Kane

Steve O'Kane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This shocking self-promoting page of a non-notable artist has somehow stood for a decade. Fails WP:Music and WP:GNG spectacularly. Cannot see any reason why it can justify its existence. Rayman60 (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete one reference, which doesn't cover most of what's in the article.74.70.146.1 (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete Absence of independent, third party sources. It seems promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:06, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Johnnie J. Young

Johnnie J. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable movie producer of low-budget direct-to-video independent films. No significant coverage in WP:RS. Possible COI issues. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Non-notable movie producer? Thanks a lot. You're going to delete my entry on Wikipedia that's been listed here for over 10 years? Why would you even do that? Are you going to delete my movies as well? Ghost Lake? Trancers 6? Demonicus? Battlestar Galactica The Second Coming? Unseen Evil? Maybe I don't get a vote in this but I obviously disagree with this deletion proposal. JohnnieYoung (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable, independent sources have turned up from my searching. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON; this subject is not yet notable per (un)available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Don't Delete Why would anyone want to delete this entry? Johnnie J. Young has been producing films for over 25 years. Johnnie J. Young has been listed on Wikipedia for over 10 years. Johnnie J. Young has produced numerous feature films including Ghost Lake, Trancers 6, Demonicus, Battlestar Galactica: The Second Coming, Unseen Evil, etc. Now some random person decides they want to delete this listing from Wikipedia that's been listed here for over 10 years? There are hundreds of articles and interviews that have been written about Johnnie J. Young and his films over the last 25 years. Who are you people whose sole purpose seems to be deleting valid information from Wikipedia? How does deleting valid information possibly add any value to Wikipedia? JohnnieYoung (talk) 05:00, 5 February 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Viktor Deimund

Viktor Deimund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

More scouting cruft. Serving as president of a small private organization does not automatically confer notability, and the fatal, rather glaring flaw here is that there are no sources to back up a claim of notability. (WP:BASIC and all that.) Not only are the first two links dead, they come from the site of the very organization with which the subject is affiliated. As for the third, it rather problematically fails to mention the subject, even though it has been manipulated here to give that appearance. ("Deimund and Oleg Mozheyko….", albeit the link mentions neither man.)

So, in line with two recent discussions on similar topics, I think we can all agree this should be zapped. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Strong keep as he is the president of the national organization, not even going to react to your snipes and jabs this time, you troll.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Being president of a small private organization (and, by the way, I see no sources, independent or otherwise, attesting even this) does not exempt one from the conditions laid down by WP:BASIC, now does it?

If you'd like this article to survive, please supply evidence that this individual has received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - if he does something else with his life, fine, but as of now, he attended one world scouting conference. Bearian (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Bearian I just searched with his name in Cyrillic and came up with several hits on his being an activist for those involved in the Chernobyl cleanup. Added them to the article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

"Chairman of the Kazakh Chernobyl Cleanup Crew Association" seems like a rather thin claim to notability. Who's next, the president of the Ecuadorean Giant Rabbit Breeders' Association? Or perhaps the head of Mali's J. R. R. Tolkien Fan Club? Maybe, come to think of it, the Dutch Dyke Diggers' Devotees Director has a crack... - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Not only president of a national association, but also one of the founders of the Scout movement in post-Soviet Central Asia. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Andreas Philopater, could you please specify the independent source(s) from which you draw this information? I mean, there's this - the only problem is that it's a promotional material hosted by a partner organization of the organization that runs the website. So it would be great if you could clarify just where is the "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" attesting to the alleged notability claim. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Your interpretation of "independent" as meaning "cannot have anything to do with scouting or even with educational co-operations that partner with scouts, because this individual they talk about has something to do with scouting" is about on a par with insisting we shouldn't accept French sources about French people, because the two have something to do with one another. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 12:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
      • Not really—the above link is basically advertising. I urge you to contemplate WP:IS and its implications in this case. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Work on Chernobyl and Scouting work country wide are note worthy. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 03:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:39, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. He's done more than one notable thing. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 9 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 merge to List of Xanth characters. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Magicians of Xanth

Magicians of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters on this character list have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every character list on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a character list which spans dozens of novels should be kept. LA (T) @ 07:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete It seems like the reason these articles exist is the author was trying to split up the list of Xanth characters by character types. I think trimming the list is a better idea. Not every character needs to be on it.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 00:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge with List of Xanth characters. A couple of these characters are likely important enough to include in the main character list. I can do the merge. --Cerebellum (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if anyone is going to search for magicians of xanth for these characters, so I think we should delete it outright. But the individual character names, if important enough, should become redirects.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Wait, you said merge. Well, I agree with that. Merge. Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 05:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge with List of Xanth characters, per above. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:42, 14 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yangon derby

Yangon derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Totally unreferenced. Rathfelder (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to add references, or aren't there enough mentions of the subject? GBRV (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG; also see WP:NRIVALRY. At best this is a case of WP:TOOSOON as this 'derby' is less than a year old! Spiderone 22:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:30, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:CBALL and WP:TOOSOON. The teams only just played at best one or two professional matches in their histories, to categories this as a "rivalry" is an extreme generalization to say the least. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:NRIVALRY, it is simply impossible for a rivalry to exist and for it to have received sufficient significant coverage to satisfy GNG after just 2 meetings between the teams. Fenix down (talk) 09:33, 11 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 Speedy delete: G12, unambiguous copyright infringement. TimothyJosephWood 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Tactical Synthetic Aperture Radar

Tactical Synthetic Aperture Radar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article is extremely vague when it comes to explaining the TSAR concept. Most of the content in this article describes and is relevant to synthetic aperture radars in general. The TSAR-specific parts could be condensed down to

The Tactical Synthetic Aperture Radar (TSAR) is a synthetic aperture radar system introduced on the MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned aerial vehicle. It delivers high-resolution, wide-area radar images. The images generated by the TSAR are 3D rather than 2D unlike typical SAR images.

Also, the included source does not seem to mention this specific technology anywhere anymore. Thus, unless additional details and sources are added I would recommend deleting this article. Quibik (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy delete as a copyvio. I've tagged the article with db-g12 seeing as there isn't much left after the infringing material is deleted. Laurdecl ^talk 07:21, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:35, 9 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Eli Clare

Eli Clare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Very little evidence of notability. Owen (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable writer/academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete with citations added to the page, this writer is notable and has won many awards.BurritoSlayer (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The rewards themselves appear of questionable notability, let alone individual winners of those awards. Owen (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete. Off to a good start but still WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 9 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 speedy keep. Disruptive nomination by a sock farm to further a political agenda —SpacemanSpiff 13:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Pasha Patel

Pasha Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason : Article is of low importance. Person is not well known or notable. Against wiki policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrulyFan (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NPOL. A quick google search for the term "Pasha Patel Maharashtra Legislative Council" threw up : that refers to Pasha Patel being a member of legislative council. ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep, former member of a subnational legislature easily passes WP:NPOL. See http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-maha-polls-will-this-bjp-muslim-candidate-make-history-2024523 --Soman (talk) 08:24, 12 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 speedy keep. Disruptive nomination by a sock farm to further a political agenda —SpacemanSpiff 13:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Gopalrao Patil

Gopalrao Patil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reason : Article is of low importance. Person is not well known or notable. Against wiki policies. Possible COI exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrulyFan (talk • contribs) 03:33, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NPOL. Mentions an entry under former members of Rajya Sabha in his name.ChunnuBhai (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete seems person is just one time member of rajya sabha. and has not received signficant media coverage.Does not pass WP:NPOL.also article has very less details and it just mentions he is rajya sabha member. IMO this article does not serve wikipedia's purpose. MrLatur (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Does not pass NOP basic criteria i.e. trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. LinkingPark (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep, as per WP:NPOL all members of national and subnational legislatures, past and present, are deemed notable per default. --Soman (talk) 08:08, 12 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.