Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 March	15 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The preponderance of the keep !votes (despite the confrontational postings of the article creator) meets notability criteria. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Call Him Dimon[edit]

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

Non-notable documentary film, no coverage about the film itself (although plenty about the subject of the film), needs independent secondary coverage about the film per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage for the film itself. SL93 (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See The Rachel Maddow Show 03/03/2017, the link is below Kap677-2 (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film had really big echo in Russia. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 06:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing citation? I cannot find any evidence of this... BOVINEBOY2008 11:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - See ^[1]. Do you speak Russian, by the way? Bovineboy2008, where are you from, guy? Kap677-2 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - How is the nationality or language of Bovineboy2008 pertinent here Kap677-2 (talk)? Are you from Ukraine? While I am not an expert editor like the rest of you, I am expert at other things. And yes, I am here.
Keep: The coverage is in abundance, see the page. It's a documentary film, not a feature one. Thus mentioned articles in The Telegraph and Sky News, for example, is more than enough. How about The Rachel Maddow Show^[2]? In addition, film has received about 13 millions of views ^[3] - it's more than population of some countries, isn't it? Kap677-2 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Kap677-2 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

As for notability: number of view more than of other russian films (even feature ones), such as Viking (film), Guardians (film), Versus (2016 film) and others? Bovineboy2008, will you delete them all? More: Rallies and manifestations devoted to this film in many russian cities and towns are going to be held 26 of March^[4] Kap677-2 (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "here".
^ "Vladimir Putin Critic Takes Big Risk Exposing Graft, see since 02:30".
^ "Fantastic reaction of authorities".
^ "Don't call him Dimon: we will demand the answer on the streets".

Keep. Contrary to assertion by the nominator, almost all references currently on the page are about this movie (and also about the subject of the movie). This includes sources like BBC, New York Times and a lot more. This is a notable documentary about a notable person. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In 80 towns and cities across Russia people are planning to hold demonstrations in the wake of this movie. I haven't seen such activity since 1991. I'm a Russian and live in Russia, and I can see how this movie is reverberating across the country. Virtually everybody has seen it. There are numerous articles, but not in the state-controlled media, which remain totally silent. ---CopperKettle 15:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sourcing exists to establish notability. Lepricavark (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paysa[edit]

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

Perfect example of the difference between brief mention and in-depth coverage in my opinion. They are mentioned in reliable sources such as Business Insider and Inc., but it is just in passing with a study or survey. Should be deleted based on WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, there are a lot of articles where Paysa gets mentioned as the data provider but the gist of the articles is about something else. Also note that the first two references in the article are the same news report (word-for-word) with different authors listed for each. Makes me think that many of these mentions are just some sort of promotion or press release. Does not meet notability standards for a corporation.Glendoremus (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article on a non-notable company, propped up by obvious Churnalism. --Calton | Talk 07:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, NCORP, promo undertones. L3X1 (distant write) 16:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weed Science Society of America[edit]

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

WITHDRAWN SNOW KEEP Non notable org. filled with red links, WP:SUSTAINED L3X1 (distant write) 23:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm pretty sure redlinks within an article do not constitute grounds for deletion. LadyofShalott 01:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that under WP:ATA, but redlinks are generally frowned upon, esp. when for such a list of non-notable people (NOTINHERIT). The reason I AfD'd the article is because after removing all the problem areas, you are left with one sentence about a non-notable organisation. Redlinks are the icing on the deletion cake, and since I am an inclusionist, the more reasons to delete, no matter how weak, the merrier. L3X1 (distant write) 01:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I thought it was going to be some fringe pot-growing org. It's actually a serious scientific group that publishes three peer-reviewed journals and a frequently-cited "Herbicide Handbook". I would get rid of the list of honorary members--there doesn't seem to be anything notable about them.Glendoremus (talk) 04:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long-standing society (founded 1956; added to article) that publishes three respected journals and several handbooks, has an EPA liaison, etc. Expansion rather than deletion seems warranted. Get rid of the list of honorary members though, that's really a gratuitous red-link fest with little to no chance of being blue'd.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Professional society producing three peer-reviewed journals and a book, the Herbicide Handbook. Meets WP:ORG. I agree that the "Honorary members" should be removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said previously, a professional society that produces three peer-reviewed journals and an important reference book. The list of redlinked honorary members is a reason for cleanup, not a reason to delete at all. LadyofShalott 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG met. WP:NEXIST is required reading if you're listing things at AfD. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note The nominator has inexplicably added WP:SUSTAINED to the nomination. Frankly, the idea that a society founded in 1956 could possibly fail WP:SUSTAINED is, to be polite, not supported by the sources that a WP:BEFORE search would have found. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a spate of articles mentioning this society in the press, Nom is withdrawing as Notability has been established, and will NAC as Snow Keep within 24 hours, unless anone else has anything else to add. L3X1 (distant write) 14:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping Exemplo347 L3X1 (distant write) 14:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kokhav[edit]

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

pointless / incorrect disambig page. The word means "star" and all listed proper names are "star of <something>" or smth., and are not called simply "Kokhav". - Staszek Lem (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - None of the supposedly disambiguated entries would be refereed to in colloquial Hebrew speech by the shorthand "Kokhav" (which would typically refer to "star") - maybe someone in the neighboring town might say 'I'm going to Kokhav' as a very regional (mile or two) shorthand - maybe. I doubt it. Kokhav nolad would always be with the nolad (or ha'ba).Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any articles to list except for partial-title matches which, as pointed out already, are not ambiguous with one another. — Gorthian (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Delete pernom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 16:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Martin (Irish republican)[edit]

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

Other Eamon Martins are notable, but not this one. L3X1 (distant write) 23:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tentatyive delete. The claims of possible notability are unreferenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs)
Keep but not a perfectly clear-cut decision. Martin was Chief of Staff of the Fianna Éireann and probably meets WP:ANYBIO solely on that basis. He is mentioned in the books and newspaper articles cited in the article (and indeed probably gets a passing mention in every serious book on the Irish Republican movements of the 1912-23 period). That said, he was not the leading figure in the Irish Republican Brotherhood (instead, he was a committeemember) not did he had a leading role in the Easter Rising. Also, the article gives the impression of being a vanity piece by or on behalf of his grandson. On balance, though, the sources cited just support keeping the article. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonably well sourced, and a significant enough figure in Irish republicanism to satisfy notability concerns. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:SOLDIER. Number 3 to be exact (He was a chief of staff).Apollo The Logician (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have played a notable role in notable world events. Also seems to meet GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references have been improved after the beginning of AfD debate.--Pampuco (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. He was part of the inner circle ("brotherhood") of the IRA. FWIW, my granddad was in the Royal Irish Constabulary. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Per the above. AusLondonder (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG and SOLDIER Reason #3,#5. Could use expansion. South Nashua (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2017 in Ireland. Kurykh (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 in the Republic of Ireland[edit]

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

There is already an article called 2017 in Ireland which appears to cover events in the Republic of Ireland. I also can't seem to find any other examples of this kind of article, such as 2016 in the Republic of Ireland. GWA88 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2017 in Ireland - which the nominator could have done without starting this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for the same reasons noted by other commenters. Recommend non-admin closure. Perhaps even by the editor who opened this tread. Guliolopez (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Foundation[edit]

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

No independent sources suggesting any sort of Notability - refs include its own website and a couple of directory listings. Was dePRODded without comment by an IP. PamD 22:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article by a new editor on a recently-formed NGO. As the nomination said, the given references are poor, hardly sufficient to verify basic existence. The External Links include several about apparently unrelated organisations which also feature the word "progressive". My searches are not finding coverage of this particular NGO. (Note that the tailored Wikiproject India search does find several "Progressive Foundation" mentions, but these predate this particular NGO.) Fails WP:ORGDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No in-depth articles that show notability. This might qualify for WP:speedy deletion under A7. User:SW3 5DL|SW3 5DL]] (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hope i have added lots of information into this article, soon will upload more info, so please remove issue note — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onestar12 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alysia Kraft[edit]

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

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

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

Delete. WP:TOOSOON trio of advertorially toned articles about a musician and her two bands, none of which have a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC or good enough reliable sourcing to clear WP:GNG as of yet. Kraft's BLP is referenced to just two pieces of purely local media coverage, and both of the bands are referenced to a mix of their own self-published web presences, other primary sources that cannot assist notability, and more purely local coverage. And the one source in any of the three articles that looks more solid, The New York Times, appears to be here to deceive people into going "oh, ok, there's an NYT cite" and not looking more carefully -- because not only does it fail to verify even one of the facts cited to it, but it completely neglects to even mention any of Kraft, Whippoorwill or The Patti Fiasco at all. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations venue for emerging bands who are hoping to make it big; making it big comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond the sources in the article, google seemed to only show blog mentions and the youtube videos. The article about her leaving the basketball team is routine coverage that adds nothing towards GNG. The other article is a local interest story in a specialized local paper that is unlikely to add toward GNG, but even if it does, one article in one paper is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Bearcat.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Peake[edit]

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

Subject is slightly Notable, when you Google him, you get pics, yet under "news" there is nothing. No press releases etc. So, for fitting in through GNG, his job might get him there, but the lack of info about him hinders me accepting this article. Hence the AfD instead of speedy. L3X1 (distant write) 22:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We tend to delete male model stubs, unless they are very well sourced; see, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Rockney (male model) (2007) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/River Viiperi (2017). Bearian (talk) 02:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Ride Productions[edit]

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

The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Dolotta (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-noteable Youtube channel. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete': Non-notable speedy deletion material. SL93 (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prentice School[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Article based almost only on affiliated sources. XXN, 21:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Content paraphrases affiliated sources without backup from anything independent or reliable. The article in its current form should be nuked, but Wikipedia categorizes it as a high school with the most tenuous of claims. The school calls itself K–8, but Ed.gov calls it K–11 with 9 students in grades 10 and 11 as of 2013–14. Either way, I can't find independent reliable source coverage to satisfy WP:ORG/WP:NSCHOOL. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - their website self-identifies the school as K-8. I see no reason to treat them otherwise. A couple of local articles but nothing that makes Prentice notable.Glendoremus (talk) 05:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia doesn't normally do K-8. Fails WP:GNG for schools anyway. Reads like a PR flyer. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maraal[edit]

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

I PRODed as an uncited possible hoax, but the article creator contested the PROD claiming that it would go public soon [1]. Nothing has since been published, which makes me either think it is a hoax, or it is a non-notable project that has zero coverage in reliable sources. I'm not tagging as G3 because of systemic bias concerns, but I do think that at the very least, even if real, it does not meet WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I could not locate any sources on the subject. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no sources means we can't have an article on it. Wikipedia doesn't print rumours. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps there is a real experimental airplane development project, but I don't find anything written about it either. There has to be substantial coverage already about something before it can have a Wikipedia article. --do ncr am 23:34, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Repeated recreation of a page deleted per an AFD discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everipedia (2nd nomination) Bishonen | talk 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Everipedia[edit]

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

NO significant evidence of notability from independent sources. Usual promotional push. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No indication that this subject has become more notable since it was deleted in September. VQuakr (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - not again. Blythwood (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agreed with all of the above, no reason for this promotional page to stay up. I landed here from google search and it was not very helpful as I had hoped. As a casual reader, I think this article lowers the quality of Wikipedia's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.160.61 (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WPGB. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WYDD[edit]

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

There is only one article, that exists in the dab page. The other page is a red link and I think that isn't notable enough. Also there is no evidence that the acronym represents the mentioned pages. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore 11-year-old redirect to WPGB. The station had the call sign "WYDD" for 22 years, so this is an entirely reasonable redirect. When/if WYDD-LP gets an article, a hatnote can be added to WPGB; a dab page isn't needed. — Gorthian (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WPGB. Current low-power station has no evidence of notability, but 22-year history of prior use makes it a plausible search term for current WPGB. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 90s Girl[edit]

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

No claim of notability. Sourced only to IMDB. Only substantive content is cut-and-pasted from IMDB. Author of IMDB entry is apparently a writer for the show. No indication of even when or where this supposed TV program will air, and not indication that it's not really webcontent rather than broadcast, cable, or satellite. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not yet. --Darth Mike^(talk) 19:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shay Lynn[edit]

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

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No qualifying awards. No independent reliable sourcing. No sourcing for biographical content. Escapes speedy deletion only because of its unsourced claim of winning a non-notable award from a non-notable awardgiver. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable objective claim of notability. Career summary appears to be the performer's IMDb filmography embellished with generous quantities of original research. No reliable sources whatsoever to support the content. No independent RS coverage found in search. No real claim of passing PORNBIO. No support for passing GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing remotely remarkable about her. In fact, the article may qualify for speedy deletion under A7. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 11:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with MShabazz, this looks like it could be a WP:SPEEDY delete under A7. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable pornographic actress.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:09, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Amortias under criterion G12. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 04:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Villarreal[edit]

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

This article seems to be about an actual non-notable person. And its written in a way which doesn't meet criteria.... Stewart Little (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a copy-paste from http://www.vlfautomotive.com/meet-our-team/ I have flagged CSD G12. AllyD (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Mohammad[edit]

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

I am unable to find evidence this person exists. The article asserts he won a Bangla Academy Literary Award in 2015, but he is not listed among the winners on that article (or in the sources that article uses). None of the sources provided in this article are available online, and my Google searches have turned up no information about him. However, with him being from Bangledesh, it could be a problem of the sources simply not being available in English. I therefore bring this to the community to see if anyone else can determine if this is a hoax or not. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He's not on the list of Bangla Academy Literary Award winners because Bangla Academy, UK is different from Bangla Academy. I can find no independent info on the UK org or award, so don't believe winning it confers notability under WP:ANYBIO. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Factiva, HighBeam, JSTOR, LexisNexis, Newsbank, ProQuest, and philb.com/nationaluknewspapers.html, including by alternative name and Bengali-script name, returned only one result that might tie back to the person described in the article, [2], a piece, in a Bangladeshi newspaper, written by a Hamid Mohammed in London about a cultural event in the Bangladeshi community there.

The article cites sources which, if they are independent, reliable, and contain significant coverage, would establish notability. Evaluating that is complicated because all but one are offline, and not in catalogues such as WorldCat, so it's difficult to say where one might consult them.

The Bangla Academy UK is not arms-length. As the awarding orgainzation, their coverage of the award and awardee does not demonstrate that either is notable. Weekly Surma, the only online source, seems to contain just a one sentence quote from him mid-way down the right-most column, so it is not in-depth coverage. The very limited material that the remaining newspapers and books have been used to support suggests that they are not detailed analyses of his life or writing, but more likely brief quotes or mentions that such-and-such book exists.

None of the content in the early life or personal life sections cites sources, so I fear this is a "my uncle the poet" article. Unless the WP:SPA returns to defend it, and ideally to provide quotes from or copies of the sources, I recommend delete. It can be a soft delete or delete without prejudice against recreation, if sufficient detail is then provided to convincingly demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lita Tresierra[edit]

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

I think she fails notability, WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. An actress whose three "best known" roles include two voice roles from video games. Career was generally small parts and single episodes of TV series. About the only coverage I find of her other than cast listings consists of remarks on her death, sometimes only for the purpose of commenting on why her character no longer appeared. Largoplazo (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may be possible to improve this article, but in its present stub shape in which it is an unsourced BLP, it is not worth repairing. It doesn't even provide one of the basic facts, how she died at 39. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Robert McClenon: It's definitely an unsourced biography, but not an unsourced BLP (biography of a living person). — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoingBatty (talk • contribs)
- I'm going to take the opportunity to tease Robert McClenon because less than three weeks ago I removed a BLPPROD tag he'd placed on another dead person's bio, David Sandoval Garcia. :-) Largoplazo (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough. My mistake. A one-sentence unsourced biography of someone who died at the age of 39 is missing something but is not a BLP. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Xingan Li[edit]

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

Random academic; cited only to employer and to their own papers. Additionally, most of the page is copyvio of those papers. Pinkbeast (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:24, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Prof unless something can be found in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Prof, also total lack of independent sources. - MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have evidence of passing any criterion of WP:PROF. And the way the article is written by copying the abstracts of his publications into it makes it looks like there is so little to say about him that filler was needed. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:PROF. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bibop Gresta[edit]

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

Neither the article nor a Google search indicates independent notability. Not enough information to be encyclopedic and not a useful stub. (External link is not in English.) Appears to have the objective of SEO by putting the name in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero evidence of notabilty. Unsourced BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The article now has sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson. We need several sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 16:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, although possibly on a weaker level. Here's a few sources, found by using the GNews link above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wired
Park Record
CNBC
Entrepreneur India
Computer News Middle East
The Hindu (1 ¶ of non-interview content)

Interviews (these don't serve to establish notability, but serve to denote media attention the subject has received.

Economic Times (interview)
Business Standard (interview) (subscription required)
Huffington Post India (interview)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give editors more time to evaluate NA's references.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is sparse to say the least (and needs expanding), but he's got 1,370 google-news hits ([3]) , including some covering him as a subject and multiple quotations of him. [4] [5] [6] There is possibly much more coverage in Italian - seems he was a TV producer and host, and at age 28 sold a company to telecom italia. He has an IMDB entry - (credits in a few movies and TV shows - Italian - I can't ascertain significance) [7] Seems Bibop was a nickname (or TV/movie character) - he was originally Gabriele Gresta And now styles himself as Bibop G. Gresta Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In-depth sources are required. There are none. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

In this case I would say there is an abundance of sources, including in depth ones as clearly evident from a quick source search. What is lacking is editor interest (myself included) in actually expanding this entry from a stub.Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source pre-Hyperloop - he was the subject of an hour-long TV documentary ("Life of Bipop") on Rai 2 (one of the main Italian TV channels). Can be seen here [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Icewhiz (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Current in-depth sources are hard to spot between the weeds (I'm sure there are more out there) - as he's covered a few times per-week in relation to various Hyperloop projects - these flood any search results (interviewing on India, Dubai, US, whatever). He does have 300k twitter followers and pre-hyperloop coverage (mainly in Italian - he was a DJ/producer, then a VJ lineup of MTV Italy's launch in the late 90s, and then did digital media and other stuff + startup incubation + softwaredev ). My comprehension of Italian, however, is not great. There is some more i-depth coverage in GQ-Italy - [14] Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found no reliable sources..Marley.600 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sources noted above in this discussion? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Certainly notable enough because of the Hyperloop projects alone, and there is ample coverage of his prior activities. Much more notable than many one-hit wonders… Obviously, the article needs work to become a passable biography; expand, don't delete. — JFG ^talk 05:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memoriad[edit]

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

This was created by a SPA with a possible COI and went undetected for two years. It contains a bunch of promo red flags (including bragging about a world record, a link to a "free download" of "Memoriad software", and MOS-disapproved use of trademark symbols). KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A good application of WP:TNT needed. All cites are either passing mentions or self-cites. No indication of notability under WP:GNG or any WP:SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - goodness, what a mess. Blythwood (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Street Swap Shop[edit]

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

Non-notable talk show lacking non-trivial, independent support. reddogsix (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This article is for a valid show produced by Williams Street that is aired Monday-Friday on their home page and is a valid production. This page acts as a primer to the show to allow those that have not been following the show to become acclimated to the backstory and cast of characters. EDIT: It is created in the same spirit as the page devoted to FishCenter Live which is another flagship show of Adult Swim's streaming content. User:CAIRat (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. What I did find were mentions and ~~less~~ press releases. --Whpq (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added multiple outside references to this show including Variety. CAIRat (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is no more than simple listing of the show. A listing in anything is hardly non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (Moved from main article page as entered by another user) It's a show. Law in order is a show. You have a law and order wiki, so if you remove this you're employing a double standard that makes no sense. You consideration of it's triviality is an opinion as I personally find Law and order to be a trivial and unimportant show, but darn do my ice age parents sure love it. So please, reconsider, a lot of us would appreciate this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAIRat (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The difference with Law and Order and this show is there are a great number of references in existence about that L&O. There are none about this show except trivial ones. Just to make sure, no one is calling this or any other show "trivial and unimportant." I am glad your parents like it, but popularity has no bearing on Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is only streamed online means that it would not meet WP:TVSERIES. And it fails WP:GNG. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It was announced on March 13. 2017 that the Swap Shop would be aired at 4am on Thursday (March 16, 2017). Much in the same vein as they have done in the past with FishCenter Live. I am hoping that having the show OTA will give it an added degree of consideration for retention. EDIT: I am aware that it has to be a recurring segment to meet WP:TVSERIES and am working to verify the airing schedule in hopes of achieving that notability. User:CAIRat (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Williams Street Swap Shop is now airing pre-recorded, condensed episodes on the air on Adult Swim as part of their "Williams Stream" programming block that airs Tuesday-Saturday at 0400. The Swap Shop is included in a weekly rotation of shows along with 3-4 other programs from the [as] Streams. I would argue that this now makes it eligible to meet WP:TVSERIES and, as such, it looks to meet the eligibility requirements as it is aired on a national network and, while only just starting to air on television, it has been around for well over a year in other media and, judging from future channel listings, will continue to air for the foreseeable future. If this doesn't put this issue to rest, please comment below with what else I need to submit to maintain this article. Thank you! User:CAIRat (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television network with a national audience." Emphasis added. Given that this has not actually become a regular series that has a broadcast history, and lacks any sort of coverage in reliable sources, I am no inclined to change my view that this show meets notability. It may become notable over time as it airs; that would be when an article on Wikipedia would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 23:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nils kuiper[edit]

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

A model whose photos are posted around on social media but with no actual coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:NMODEL. Largoplazo (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author added mentions of a couple of prizes Nils Kuiper has won. One of them was a local inter-school art contest when he was 14, for a painting titled "Summertime". I haven't looked into the significance of the "Mr. Alternative" award. Largoplazo (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the article does not demonstrate significant coverage from reliable sources. I also note that, even if everything in the article were to be reliably sourced (some of it is based on YouTube videos), there would still be a question of whether the article was making a reasonable claim of significance. NewYorkActuary (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination – Editør (talk) 11:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW. Clear evidence that WP:GNG is met, combined with justifiable concerns about the nominator (the creation of this discussion being their only act on Wikipedia) means that this discussion can only go one way. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lola Rae[edit]

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

Subject of article is not notable in her country as research proves, a study and google search turns up only twitter tweets and announcements from bogs which may not be independent of subject and lacks reliability this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, generally it fails WP:GNG. it should be Deleted very fastly. Angeladore (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article passes WP:RS, WP:GNG and is notable in her country as they're publications on popular and reputable news websites, google search turns out a lot on GNEWS, in fact all statements by nominator says otherwise to what i found, nominator may be having WP:COI or issues leading to nomination. Zazzysa (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject meets WP:GNG per these sources from Vanguard, Daily Post, Vanguard, The Punch and Premium Times. She was extensively discussed by Pulse NG. By the way, this edit shows @Angeladore: (who I think might have issues with the subject) created this afd thread while this edit shows contrary. Sockpuppetry? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 23:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep article passes WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG, my thesis is this; nominator of article clearly is doing this to undermine @Oluwa2Chainz: as an editor (personal reasons obviously) as history shows this user @Angeladore: only created a page for this sole purpose. Admin should speedily keep this and let's focus on real things affecting Wikipedia and its editors. Celestina007 (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of this article passes WP:GNG. In addition to the sources pointed out by Oluwa2Chainz, I was able to find coverage in The Guardian Nigeria and BBC UK. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 17:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prudence EP[edit]

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

This EP exists but does it meet notability requirements? Based on the listed sources (iTunes, bandcamp, and others which rely on user contributions), it doesn't appear to be so. I'm happy to have the author or others find the reliable sources that I couldn't. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only primary sources. Doesn't appear notable. The artist doesn't even have an article. Ss 112 17:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Artist doesn't have an article. Not enough coverage to suggest the album being notable. JayCodec (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The EP has not been discussed in reliable sources to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The EP fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable --Jennica✿ / ^talk 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable as it has not received enough coverage to justify an independent article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Sutliff[edit]

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

Could find nothing in-depth with the exception of the interview mentioned. For the moment he doesn't meet WP:NFILMMAKER or WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON, at least as his films go. The sources linked and available have WP:GNG problems, being either not significant (e.g., a two-paragraph article on Screen Anarchy), not independent (most of the sources linked in the article), or not reliable (e.g., this blog interview). WP:NFILMMAKER would ask for him creating a "significant or well-known" work, and the one feature film he has created appears to have only gotten limited release, mainly in festivals. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arshdeep Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BASIC. I do not see any coverage outside of the walled garden of digital media promotion such as the examples sourced in the article. VQuakr (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Inlinetext (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Huffington Post link is to their blog portion, thus it does not pass the reliable source criteria for GNG purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete. Person is notable. Arshlabbu

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Sinha (artist)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it does not meet the WP:GNG as it only has significant coverage in unreliable sources. A WP:BEFORE search did not find any sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 14:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the notability criteria for people. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject has no coverage by RSes. My searches found nothing helpful. Gab4gab (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Recreation of DJ Rahul Sinha and Rahul Sinha (DJ) no indication of passing WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Aside from previous speedy-deletions, there is a thrice-declined Draft:Rahul Sinha (DJ). Then along comes a WP:SPA new account which copies it into mainspace under this title and notifies the account which created the draft that their article has been accepted. While the subject has the usual social media accounts and shades, my searches are identifying no evidence of attained notability, whether by WP:MUSICBIO or WP:BASIC criteria. AllyD (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AllyD: Also Draft:DJ Rahul Sinha was declined four times. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have applied a speedy tag accordingly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mygodshot[edit]

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

Non-notable project and future publication. No coverage anywhere that I can find and only claim in article is a member receiving an award. Fails WP:GNG. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a new project. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from one participant having previously received an award for a piece of design work (and the Bronze A' Design Award for Graphics and Visual Communication Design does not appear notable in itself anyway). My searches are finding social media but no reliable 3rd party coverage of this venture. At best, WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article's creator (who appears to have a COI) has stated that there are print sources available, however we would need to see them in order to see if they are independent and in-depth reliable sources. WP:PRIMARY sources (things released by the publication and/or people/organizations related to it) and WP:TRIVIAL sources (one line or very short mentions of the project in passing) cannot show notability for the paper and given the complete lack of coverage for the project I have to assume that most or all of the coverage is either primary or trivial. Once this publishes and it gains the necessary RS it can be recreated, but not before then. Something I have to warn the article creator about (since they appear to have created this in all good faith) is that routine notifications and database type listings do not show notability, as it only shows that the publication exists in one form or another, which is not a sign of notability in and of itself. I'd recommend that if they're interested, that they work on a copy of this at WP:AfC in the meantime and I have no problem with this being sent to the AfC draftspace. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only source provided doesn't mention the subject. Fails WP:GNG Mduvekot (talk) 01:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom/Tokyogirl79.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murtala Muhammed Airport School[edit]

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

Non-notable primary school. No seconday coverage to speak of. Fails WP:GNG; as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES suggest either redirecting into a secondary school for whih this primary is (presumably?) a feeder school, or, of course, just delete if no such can be found. — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC) — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 14:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the one article source there is Murtala Muhammed Airport Sec. School which is an 'off school' (whatever that is) of this one. I found only one brief article on the secondary and nothing additional on the primary. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete little to no notability and also fails WP:GNG, perharps a case of WP:NOTJUSTYET. Article may be created at a later time. Celestina007 (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created the article a little bit too soon, will try again once i have more more to back the page up. Zazzysa (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanushree Chatterjee[edit]

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

Non-notable film actress. Winged Blades^Godric 12:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanushree Chatterjee is notable bhojpuri cinema actress of bihar and uttar pradesh.She is Upcoming Film With Actor Ravi Kishan Chatterjee is Upcoming Bhojpuri Film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enaya Afzal (talk • contribs) 12:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per above. Leutha (talk) 15:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry,it's just trivially mentioned that the actress stars in a yet-to-be released B-grade fim which itself is prob. non-notable.How does that vouch for notability?And that's the only piece of reference I could scrape from a Google search.Winged Blades^Godric 04:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can add more sources. This looks WP:TOOSOON. I've looked for a while and can't find enough coverage to justify fixing the article. Mortee (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG and might be WP:TOSOON.FITINDIA (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Wrong forum. This should been asked the help desk. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:My Core Competency is Competency/EditCounterOptIn.js[edit]

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

I made this page but because it is a .js file I do not know how to put a banner on it for speedy deletion. Thank you for your help! My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pass the soy sauce. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese fried rice[edit]

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

Totally unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK; fully covered at Fried rice В²C ☎ 16:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article, as there seem to be a consensus that the Fried rice page supposed to be an overview about fried rice in general. (See this discussion.) It is also suggested that "If it's been hijacked to suggest that China is to be featured exclusively those edits should be reverted." If Chinese fried rice article should be deleted, and Fried rice article cannot feature Chinese fried rice exclusively, where can you encounter the detailed information about Chinese varieties of fried rice dishes? --Epulum (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your motivation but the focus of the article does not have to be Chinese fried rice in order to adequately cover that topic. It can be a subsection of that article, along with other subsections about other popular specified types of fried rice. Look at the article on Meatball, for example. And reread WP:CONTENTFORK, in particular the conditions that warrant a WP:SPINOUT. These conditions are not present in this case. --В²C ☎ 00:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other pages? Indonesian fried rice, Japanese fried rice, Korean fried rice, and Thai fried rice are separate articles. For me, it doesn't make sense that Japanese fried rice (which has its origin in Chinese fried rice!) can be an article, but Chinese fried rice can't. --Epulum (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap. I just glanced at Indonesian fried rice. Surprisingly serious article. Well, if the plan for Chinese fried rice is to expand to something comparable, that's a different story. This nom is based on its current content, and the fact that Fried rice seems to be about Chinese fried rice. --В²C ☎ 17:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute, Indonesian Fried rice is just a redirect and it was created yesterday. --В²C ☎ 17:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese fried rice is a newly created redirect as well. --В²C ☎ 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because Indonesian fried rice and nasi goreng (literally "fried rice" in Indonesian) are the same thing. You can see what the search result of "Indonesian fried rice" looks like. The redirects are made because I was told "those looking for a specific country's variant, e.g. Korea's, can always type in "Korean fried rice" in the search box and be redirected to the appropriate target." in the teahouse and I agreed. --Epulum (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK. User:Born2cycle said it best here: "The WP:COMMONNAME for Chinese fried rice is 'fried rice' and Chinese fried rice is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'fried rice'". — AjaxSmack 02:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little bit confused. Are other (non-Chinese) 'fried rice' not 'fried rice'? --Epulum (talk) 05:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I'm not convinced that Chinese fried rice is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That notion seems to stem from a western worldview most familiar with Chinese fried rice. As other Asian cultures have their own pages for variations of fried rice, I would agree that so should the Chinese cuisine. Of course, this would need to be better distinguised in the respective Fried rice and Chinese fried rice pages if kept. --NoGhost (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per NoGhost.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_fried_rice_dishes#China where this is already covered. Apart from being a content fork, it is largely original research. There is nothing called "Chinese fried rice". The term is sometimes used an umbrella term in general parlance to refer to fried rice dishes of Chinese origin. Specific dishes such as Hokkien Fried Rice are sometimes colloquially referred to as "Chinese friend rice" due to the ethnic origin. But there is no formal definition in reliable sources. The article as of now essentially is partly OR and this can be safely covered at the redirect target mentioned. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has potential. Perhaps originating author should mark it as a WP:STUB? (I disagree both assertions "The WP:COMMONNAME for Chinese fried rice is 'fried rice' and Chinese fried rice is arguably the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for 'fried rice'". I think that would be WP:Systemic bias). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per Lemongirl942. Essentially a WP:SYNTH or WP:MADEUP topic. In this case systemic bias has resulted in the creation of an essentially nonexistent topic. Countering systemic bias would be to delete this article. Saying "Chinese fried rice" is like saying Americans in the United States. f eminist 14:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: I don't follow you. There is rice (Rice). Some rice is fried (Fried rice). Some fried rice is cooked in a Chinese style (Chinese fried rice). Some fried rice is cooked in an Indonesian style (Nasi goreng). Some fried rice is cooked in an American style (apparently) (American fried rice). Not all fried rice is Chinese, or Chinese-style. Not all people in the United States are American. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "some fried rice is cooked in a Chinese style (Chinese fried rice)" is true but it is only an encyclopedic topic if that concept differs from or is held to be distinct from fried rice in reliable sources. Otherwise, it is a WP:SYNTH topic; see WP:NOTDIR #6. — AjaxSmack 20:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shhhnotsoloud, but American fried rice (called khao phat amerikan in Thai) is a type of khao phat (or Thai fried rice; but it means "fried rice" in Thai). --Epulum (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve: There seems little doubt that it is possible to create serious and well-cited articles on national varieties of fried rice (and many are listed at List of fried rice dishes), the Indonesian nasi goreng being a clear instance. The parent article, fried rice ought therefore to have sections for each major national cuisine that includes varieties of the dish, but that's an issue for that article's editors, not this AfD. The remaining question is whether there are enough fried rice dishes in Chinese cuisine to justify a subsidiary article on the topic. The list article's entry for China has Canton (or Wui Fan 燴飯) rice; Hokkien (or Fujian) fried rice; Yin Yang Fried Rice; and Yeung chow (or Yangzhou) fried rice. An internet search discovers recipes for Chinese chicken, pork, egg, vegetable and lup chong (sausage) fried rice dishes, though prawn/shrimp is said to be inauthentic at least in its Western form. That should be enough to support a reasonable article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to fried rice. That is admittedly my preference, but I think this content would be better placed on one big article than on many tiny small ones that repeat themselves a lot. Blythwood (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The claim that Chinese varieties are the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the fried rice requires some rationales. I don't see any. --SunYating (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see that this is counter-intuitive. However, fried rice as we know it in western countries is often not Chinese fried rice, even when we call it "Chinese" fried rice or order it at a so-called "Chinese" restaurant. An article about the origins of fried rice in China, how it is traditionally prepared and how it is prepared today is of interest, and is notable enough to have a separate article. Fried rice has so many variations that it bears dividing into separate articles, such as nasi goreng, chahan (food) and so on, including this article, and this approach is likely to produce more comprehensive coverage of the subject. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But it requires considerable expansion in Chinese fried rice article. It desperately need elaborations in the aspects of history, ingredients and variants. Plus the fried rice umbrella article should be written in more global perspective by putting less emphasis in Chinese elements (moved this to Chinese fried rice as has been done by Epulum). Both articles; Chinese fried rice and fried rice obviously need more references. Gunkarta talk 21:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Medication[edit]

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

Imo this is an essay. TheLongTone (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTESSAY Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~ Merge per Waters.Justin. There is room for a balanced, encyclopedic article on criticism of western medicine. This isn't it, at least not yet, but there is good, cited content here, it just needs to be purged of editorial tone and unsupported synthesis. —swpb^T 17:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pharmaceutical_drug#Controversies. I agree the article is written in an WP:NOTESSAY manner, but the subject of the article is still notable. The problem is that a size or topic split is not justified, so I think the content should be merged into Pharmaceutical drug. See WP:SPLIT. Waters.Justin (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only a single source (the review by Klarić et al.) appears to meet MEDRS. The one other non-news source appears to be primary, and not a review. So, there's nothing in this essay worth merging, because it would have to nearly all be immediately replaced or removed for failing MEDRS. Keeping is pretty much out of the question per WP:CRITS. TimothyJosephWood 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced POV axegrinding laced with OR. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content fork, we have articles on all these topics. Blythwood (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schannel (YouTube channel)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Not to be confused with the Microsoft product. Kleuske (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides being yet another of those damned infobox only articles from an obvious COI account (which is enough for me personally to want to delete it, burn the remains, and spread the ashes), the only possible thing that could be a credible claim to significance is maybe having 0.5 million subscribers (just maybe squeaking by db-web), but that doesn't put it in the same solar system as even the top 50. Even worse, the title is so exceedingly generic that the onus is completely on the author to provide something to save it from deletion. Since this is one of those article made to avoid A3, and "fuck it you fix it for me", I see no reason to think that's gonna happen. Delete with a vengeance. TimothyJosephWood 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have been saying that there should be an A12 criterion for infobox-only articles, which never have a valid purpose, and are always used to avoid some rule. However, since we can't speedy this thing, just delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure though, I notified RMc of the existence of the article due to his involvement with multiple similar discussions at WT:CSD. If that's a form of canvassing then maybe our !votes should be somewhat pro-rated. TimothyJosephWood 20:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Really don't like to see these infobox only articles. @Timothyjosephwood:, that's not canvassing. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I could have wagered my life savings on the way his opinion would have swung. So it's not exactly contacting an impartial third party either. TimothyJosephWood 12:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youtube channel.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Trek. Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy and religion in Star Trek[edit]

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

two sentences do not an article make. needs to be merged somewhere or returned to draft state to incubate, at best Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Restore TAnthony (talk · contribs)'s redirect from August pending development of article content. The subject is notable (e.g. philosophy & religion hits on Google yield published third-party commentary in droves) but current content isn't there yet. The redirect seems apt for now and we'll get the article done before the WP:DEADLINE. --EEMIV (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per EEMIV. I agree completely that the subject has potential and sources, but has been sitting here undeveloped for just over a year now. Rather than having a largely empty article languishing here, a redirect to the main Star Trek article would be better, and then when someone actually develops the article fully, it can be reverted back to an independent article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An unpublished edition could also be useful. I was inspired to write this from Philosophy and religion in Star Wars but that seems to be mostly extinct. It's also arguable that Star Trek puts a lot of emphasis on philosophy and even religion, so it's something notable. What EEMIV wrote is also agreeable.--NadirAli نادر علی

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alyas Robin Hood characters[edit]

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

~~Fails WP:NTV, and none of the sources are reliable secondary sources. A good-faith search for coverage by said reliable sources turns up one mention in a single article by the Inquirer.[Inquirer[15]~~ Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A second look at the main article satisfied the need for reliable sources. Though I do still wish to AfD this article, as there is no need for a separate page for the list of character from a nominally popular TV show. Especially considering the fact that a list is already included in the article. I left the above comment, but struck-out to be as transparent as possible. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 10:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this kind of article should not be created in the first place. It violates WP:LISTCRUFT and the "list" articles does not even expound the content of its main article, rather, it justs forking out the list of characters/guests for a certain Philippine TV show for no reason at all. A bunch of these articles have been recently sprouting like mushrooms and should be reviewed one by one. -WayKurat (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:LISTCRUFT ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 mass deletion of pages by Kazaro 2607:FB90:6649:C5A8:F0B6:8A5A:EE93:1886 (talk) 15:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment, this isn't G5 worthy, as the article wasn't created to circumvent a block. Had this been created by a sock, then yes G5 could apply, but not in this case. The user was blocked later one, but that doesn't make this a G5 deletion. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Buses in Klang Valley. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 13:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Klang Valley Bus Network Revamp[edit]

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

Wikipedia isn't a travel guide nor is it used as press releases or advertise route and timetable changes Ajf773 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transport-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Buses in Klang Valley. I don't necessarily think this content should be excluded on the basis of WP:TRAVELGUIDE, however, it is far too specific and detailed for a future event as per WP:FUTURE. The topic has no notability independent of the existing Buses in Klang Valley article, and references to the revamp would be better suited as a paragraph on that page. --NoGhost (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Buses in Klang Valley. The article is about a future event, and fails WP:NOTTRAVEL. It has nothing which is worth a stand-alone article, so it is better to merge it with the article about buses in Klang Valley. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 23:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Buses in Klang Valley per above. I see some coverage in reliable sources, but the article content could easily just be merged to the proposed target article rather than it being its own Wikipedia entry. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:12, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 22:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANTI (computer virus)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it does not pass the WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The only coverage it has is is in a list of Mac viruses. A WP:BEFORE search revealed no useful sources (only antivirus programs). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A WP:BEFORE search revealed several useful sources, which are now added, fulfilling the notability requirement. This deletionist crusade is not the answer; expanding articles is the answer. But it's so much easier to destroy than to create, isn't it.--pmj (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Pmj (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

Delete - with the possible exception of the SMH newspaper piece which I could not access (link given in the refs) the refs are from standard virus listings, i.e. not "detailed coverage". I could not find better, but for obvious reasons the search key "anti virus" does not yield good results. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTE makes no mention of "detailed coverage". Which policy are you referring to? Most of these references are significant, reliable secondary sources, and all are independent of the subject.

The link works for me, both directly and via Tor Browser. It comprises a thumbnail of the scanned newspaper page along with its complete OCR text. --pmj (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG, part of WP:N, says "significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail (emphasis added). The long-standing practice at AfD is that comprehensive or pseudo-comprehensive listings of foo do not make a particular listed instance of foo notable.

As for the SMH, for some reason I can now read the OCR text (I would have sworn it was not there). It is a review of a bulletin board of Symantec, and includes a totally trivial mention of ANTI (far below anything GNG-worthy). The entirety of the relevant quote is as follows: From the Symantec dial-up bulletin board last week, we downloaded the latest definitions to deal with three of the latest potential Macintosh interlopers: the "Garfield 2", "Anti-Ange" and "ZucB" viruses. Garfield 2 creates difficulties with accessing applications or menus in the Mac system; Anti-Ange attaches itself to applications resource code, sometimes causing them to crash; ZucB, an Italian strain, causes your cursor to go crazy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak to the policy as written. The bulk of the references in this article satisfy this requirement (emphasis added):

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

Let us abide by policy and not move the goalposts beyond what is codified. --pmj (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the quote above "more than a trivial mention"? The entire content is Anti-Ange attaches itself to applications resource code, sometimes causing them to crash (which applications (all of them?)? how does it "attach itself to it"?). How does a listing in a comprehensive virus list "[address] the topic in detail"?

On a side note, if you want to accuse me of moving the goalposts, please provide exact quotes. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, we're on the same team. I came here to clear up some WP:BEFORE misunderstanding, and that is done. So you can understand how in this context, mention of an undocumented "long-standing practice" outside published policy would seem Kafkaesque.

We may have different concepts of what the phrase "in detail" means in that rule. For you it is the most important part of the rule, and you have heuristics about what "detail" means, right? Whereas I didn't even think to bold it, because the second sentence gives a definition: more than a trivial mention. Which the specific, technically detailed references from McAfee and UHH for instance are by a wide margin. --pmj (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve I read the article over, and I think it could be more thoroughly referenced. However, I think it meets WP:GNG. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Anis[edit]

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

Despite a wealth of references, there is nothing here that speaks to notability. A very recently formed group with no chart successes to their name. They have released recordings and have been a warm-up band for others but all the refs simply advertise them or acknowledge their existence. Way, way too soon. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The band has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. References include TimeOut Cyprus http://www.timeoutcyprus.com/, Politis (national newspaper)http://politis.com.cy/ , Must Magazine Cyprus (under a prominent publishing house) http://www.must.com.cy/, and City Free Press http://city.sigmalive.com/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8A8G8 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A year old band whose press coverage so far is promotional. No other indications of notability, merely existence. Possibly a case of WP:TOO SOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 prejudice towards redirection. Kurykh (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Raisa Avanessian[edit]

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

The article has only one source, which I am not sure would add towards GNG, but one source is never enough for GNG. There is no indication that her music competition success is actually notable enough to make her a notable musician. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, notability under WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage exists, not that the references appear in the article. Hack (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP rules require that sourcing exist in the article, if it does not exist in the article on a living person such as Avanessian, we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are correct - then you'd BLPProd it - or better yet, just add a ref. But what's the relevance? @Johnpacklambert: It has a reference already. Which clearly proves the claim of winning The Voice. So what is your ground for deletion. Nfitz (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to The Voice of Armenia. I found no additional coverage by searching. The current source for the article has minor coverage of winning The Voice competition. Not enough to satisfy any notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janam Jali (Season 2)[edit]

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

Declined repeat PROD by User:SwisterTwister with rationale "A lot of questionability here given there's no convincing sourcing and there's factual concerns here, such as the largely noticeable fact a "season 2" was started yet there's no support of the show ever starting at all, this with the fact of nothing to show it existed, is enough to delete. The only sources found are mere social media and not ones particularly solid to use here and the history then also shows minimal to no changes from apparent SPA accounts." This assessment looks correct. — Train2104 (t • c) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Husain Lawai[edit]

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

a low-profile individual, failed to meet WP:BIO.. received some press mentions but nothing else. Saqib (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable banker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halca[edit]

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

No real indication that the subject passes notability guidelines. One source is an interview, which generally would not pass GNG, the other is a press release from the musical group they are part of. Neither passes as an indepdent, reliable 3rd party source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emiri Aizawa[edit]

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

Overly promotional article lacking enough reliable sources to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment might be notable, but needs a Japanese speaker to look at the sources and the publishers. 8/10 sources seem to be from "Model Press".198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Aiken[edit]

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

Aiken is a non-notable musician. The band he is in might be notable, but he has no notability indepdent of the band. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibel Agan[edit]

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

For the European championships, only those finishing in the top 8 are notable, and Agan did not finish that high. For other competitions Agan has been in it is necessary to finish even higher, which has not happened John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prachee Adhikari[edit]

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

This article was deleted back in 2008. While she has been in more roles since then, there is no evidence that any are in notable productions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. See WP:SOFTDELETE. Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Abramovič[edit]

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

Has not played on a team that would grant him notability as a basketball player. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 College of Engineering Karunagappally. No prejudice towards renomination for deletion using the appropriate processes. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CEK Daksha[edit]

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

No references and very little if any credible claim of significance. Google search turns up no third-party hits, only this article and other vanity hits. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to College of Engineering Karunagappally. That article doesn't currently have any information on this festival, but there is nothing here worth merging. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Acharezzi[edit]

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

The article has no sources at all. There is nothing in the article that indicates he has reached a level of notability as a skater. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 11:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. References available are all the instagram variety. Lourdes 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find anything better. For the record, this should have gone BLPPROD before going AfD. TimothyJosephWood 18:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Oluyide[edit]

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

No objective evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Article is well sourced. Since it's new, other contributors would improve it Laru0004 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Patrick is a notable consultant from Akure in Nigeria

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesnt meet WP:GNG and fails WP:RS Zazzysa (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Altman[edit]

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

The articles relies on primary sources, and there are not sufficient reliable sources to support WP:GNG. –CaroleHenson (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual with most references are articles subject has written. Hardly any sourcing independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonioatrylia (talk • contribs) 22:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding sources, and this painfully promotional writing style suggests spam/autobio. The inclusion of totally unsourced trivia about having run marathons doesn't help, but regardless, no strong indication of notability. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. This outcome likely addresses the concerns of those advocating deletion. Kurykh (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barney & Friends videos[edit]

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

Duplicate of List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 05:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clear duplicate. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Situation not clear. This list-article was created back in 2005! The other one was created in 2005 also, as "List of Barney & Friends episodes". Note, for example, this early 2006 version of "videos" linked in See also section to the "episodes". I am not familiar with this topic area and I don't understand the organization back then, but it seems there was some split which was stable for more than 10 years! "Delete" is not the answer, as that destroys long edit history. "Redirect" is possibly the answer. Why is this at AFD at all, though, why didn't someone put a merger proposal on the articles and come to a sensible agreement without invoking the threat of outright deletion of people's work?
Redirect, presumably to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos, is tentatively what I suggest. --do ncr am 07:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I agree, save the edit history. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Lloyd Awards[edit]

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

I can't find any substantial coverage of these awards by news sources (though this certainly isn't my area of familiarity). I suspect the topic doesn't meet WP:GNG, but I'd appreciate some input from others. Ajpolino (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 11:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These awards appear to be simply recognitions made by a single blogger, with no other voters and no media coverage that I can find outside the blog itself. (See http://boomboxserenade.typepad.com/boombox_serenade/the_lloyd_awards/ for the blog's own postings of the award.) No evidence of notability has been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. No apparent coverage except for the blog that "hosts" these awards. Imalawyer (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has only an external link to the blog as a source. Searching found nothing helpful. Meets no notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Given that the two main contributors are users named Boomboxserenade (the name of the blog) and Sjcoulter (the name of the blogger), this probably qualifies for WP:A11. The other contributions appear to be typos, wikilinks and other automated minutiae.

At any rate, this is a non-notable award from a non-notable blog from non-notable writer. TimothyJosephWood 18:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bereft of independent sourcing. No claimn of notability. No more notable than my "Best Grandpa Ever" Award, which is at least tangibly evidenced by a coffee mug. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Djamel Dahou[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer - does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 09:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage in non-English media - [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. SL93 (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Youth titles and titles from minor organizations are insufficient to meet WP:NBOX and there is a lack of significant independent coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. The sources given by SL93 all seem to be just routine sports reporting of results and fight announcements. Papaursa (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Peugeot[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the claims to notability hang on the coat tails of his father or others. There is nothing here that speaks to independent notability. This was a draft article moved unilaterally into main space without review. At the very least it should go back to Draft and be improved before going through a normal review. At present it fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ThatGirlTayler (talk) 19:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Natrona County High School[edit]

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

Article is a stub that fails both WP:BRANCH and is only locally known. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 05:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the results of the recent RFC on secondary school notability, notability can be established for high schools by "reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media." This is the case with Natrona County High School. WP:BRANCH itself does not seem to be applicable, but the section below WP:BRANCH about schools refers to "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education" whereas this school appears to provide mainstream education; it is not merely a support to mainstream education. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: A school isn't notable just because it exists, to allow every individual school to have it's own Wikipedia page is ridiculous and is outside the scope of what an encyclopedia should be. It's a tiny school in a tiny town, how is that notable? ThatGirlTayler (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC) Sorry, you don't get to vote in an AfD that you started. It's assumed that if you nominated the article, you want it deleted. John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are replying to me, that is a straw man. My position is not that the school is notable merely because it exists, nor that every school should have an article. My position is that there are adequate sources for notability according to the most recent WP opinion. There are 2,130 Gnews results and 108,000 results in a Google search. Also, the building is on the National Register of Historic Places. Overall, this is more than enough for notability. The article could be expanded and references improved, but the school is notable. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's been covered in secondary sources, it's on the National Register of Historic Places, and has famous alumni such as Dick Cheney, Lance Deal, and Matthew Shepard. There aren't many more qualifications a school can have to be considered notable. Imalawyer (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a secondary school which has received more than enough coverage to demonstrate notability and which is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools may not always be notable, but buildings on the National Register of Historic Places certainly are. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My read of the RfC mentioned by Jacknstock is that local coverage in RSes meeting GNG is a criteria for keeping. Searching find plenty of local news coverage. Gab4gab (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of sources about the school establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The article is plainly not a stub, and the nominator's rationale provides no substantive basis for deletion. This is exactly the sort of unresearched, unanalyzed nomination that the recent RFC rejected. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier Boy (film)[edit]

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A search for the filmmaker's name and film title does reveal some coverage, a mix of some French film blog hits or North Dakotan local press. Things like this. Despite the inclusion in the Guinness record book, I don't believe that's enough for us. Fails WP:NFILM from what I can see. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Guinness World Records has a ton of silliness like this, I don't think it's enough to establish notability. Seven seconds... is enough for the title, right? Timmyshin (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pkew Pkew Pkew[edit]

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

No indication or evidence of Wikipedia:Notability. PK T(alk) 02:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PK T(alk) 02:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fact that there's one reference from Exclaim! is really the only thing here that even starts to build a case for notability — but the other two references are both primary ones and the Exclaim! reference doesn't actually support anything about the band that would constitute an automatic WP:NMUSIC pass (such as winning a Juno), so the Exclaim! citation doesn't slamdunk the case all by itself. No prejudice against recreation if and when there's a stronger notability claim than "they exist", but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. Bearcat (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with my fellow editors; there is no real indication of Wikipedia:Notability. From the lack of reputable sources, and little notoriety in their field, I will have to say this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.V.Putnam (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the significant sources in significant numbers to merit a wikipedia entry. A search turns up the usual social media, user submitted sites, press releases and promotions of venue appearances. Existences does not equal notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:TOOSOON. They're not quite fully there yet. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bea Priestley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication or evidence of Wikipedia:Notability. Looks mean, though. PK T(alk) 02:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails WP:GNG, page itself seems to be copied entirely from here. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 05:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete user is repeatedly creating articles for non-notable wrestlers which are lifted directly from the Prowrestling Wikia site. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 07:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the significance of the championship she has won? Is it major or minor? What is the NSPORTS criteria for similarly-situated pro wrestlers? Anyone know? Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and probably could be a WP:SPEEDY since the article is lifted from here. I think we still call that WP:COPYVIO. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a copyvio, but lacking attribution. Wikia is licensed CC-BY-SA. Schwede 66 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete is not notable. Schwede 66 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable wrestler..CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Demi Bennett[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 01:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. This was all I could find beyond wrestling websites. Yvarta (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user is repeatedly creating articles for non-notable wrestlers which are lifted directly from the Prowrestling Wikia site. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This could be a speedy delete if this is really lifted from the Prowrestling Wikia site. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable wrestler..CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Garrett[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Copy-vio. Nikki♥311 01:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 01:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete user is repeatedly creating articles for non-notable wrestlers which are lifted directly from the Prowrestling Wikia site. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have we blocked the article creator? If he keeps creating articles with material he's lifted elsewhere, we should give him a time-out. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage and no indication of meeting any notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable wrestler..CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 19:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "here".

[2] "Vladimir Putin Critic Takes Big Risk Exposing Graft, see since 02:30".

[3] "Fantastic reaction of authorities".

[4] "Don't call him Dimon: we will demand the answer on the streets".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]