Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 1 March 3 March >

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. Mifter (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President of China[edit]

President of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is unnecessary disambiguation. I know of no place where the President of the ROC is referred to as the "President of China"; China, after much back and forth many years ago, is now a settled primary topic. The title, President of China should point to the topic that reflects the President of China, which is the President of the People's Republic of China, the clear primary topic of this term. Reference to the ROC, unlikely as it is, can be handled in a hatnote. bd2412 T 00:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this disambig is helpful, both for those unfamiliar with the topic, as well as providing NPOV on the PRC/ROC issue as well. South Nashua (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The relevant policy is WP:TWODABS. Where there are only two articles having a disambiguation page just wastes editors time. Better to redirect them to the most likely target, which is President of the People's Republic of China, much as China and People's Republic of China refer to the same article. The minority who get there looking for President of the Republic of China are best served by a hatnote, which already exists at President of the People's Republic of China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JohnBlackburne, WP:TWODABS applies only if there is a primary topic, which is what's being decided here. If consensus is that there is no primary topic, then any dab page with just two entries is fine. — Gorthian (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a clear primary topic. Search in Google for "President of China" and the first thing listed is Xi Jinping – not a search result but what Google says is the president of China. Second and third are two of our articles President of the People's Republic of China and Xi Jinping. The first news result is an article in the economist, "Is China's president the new Deng Xiaoping?". And so on. If you say "The president of China" or "China’s President" overwhelmingly people will think of Xi Jinping.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect This disambiguation should be deleted and redirected to President of the People's Republic of China which is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Per WP:TWODABS "If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.)" AusLondonder (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Where's the proof that "President of the People's Republic of China" is primary for "President of China"? Most people typing "president of China" probably want to read about Xi Jinping. Yes, he's president of PRC but it's a different article. But even ignoring that...

I did a Gbook search of "President of China" and tabulated the first 40 results as follows:

Header text President of PRC President of ROC Partial match Unknown
Page 1 5 1 3 1
Page 2 1 1 6 2
Page 3 3 3 4 0
Page 4 3 4 3 0
Total 30% 22.5%

No evidence of a primary topic. Notice ROC has a longer history and List of Presidents of the Republic of China is a much longer article than List of Presidents of the People's Republic of China. Timmyshin (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But that is historic. Obviously so WRT List of Presidents of the Republic of China which includes presidents of two countries, Taiwan and the pre-1949 ROC. But more generally the PRC was not recognised as China until the 1970s; before then, and certainly before 1949 "president of China" did not mean the president of the PRC. We do not though base the primary topic on historic usage, but on modern usage. And modern usage is that the President of China is Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 19:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Long-term significance" is a major consideration for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That's why it's not going to redirect to Xi Jinping either, just like POTUS isn't a redirect for Donald Trump. "Long-term", by definition, is historic. If what a person watches or reads today is only the news, then we should only concern ourselves with 2017, but that's not the case. As shown, ROC is represented very well in GBooks, and it's not surprising, as before 1983 there were no "President of PRC" (Mao was a "chairman" not "president"). In short,
  • "President of China" = "President of ROC" (100%) from 1912 to 1983 (70+ years)
  • "President of China" = "President of PRC" (90+%) + "President of ROC" from 1983 to 2017 (30+ years)
So in my opinion it's not a good idea not to disambiguate, because a person not familiar with Chinese history may likely encounter something like this and get very confused not finding Chiang Kai-shek's name on President of the People's Republic of China. Timmyshin (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the same "historical" reasoning, we could make President of the United States a disambiguation page pointing to one article on the presidents from Washington through Trump, and a second article on Presidents of the Confederate States of America. A person not familiar with American history might be confused not to find Jefferson Davis on the list of U.S. presidents. bd2412 T 04:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then again a person not familiar with American history might not know who Jefferson Davis is! </humor> — Yash talk stalk 16:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good discussion. This is a politically sensitive issue. In my opinion, it's best to have the clearest information possible. If this page helps to make the issue a little clearer to Westerners, then it's good. Jeff Quinn (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The explanation by Timmyshin above is convincing. Long term significance is a major consideration for a primary topic (which is why Palestine is a broad concept article with Palestine (region) and State of Palestine existing separately). In this case, there doesn't seem to be a primary topic and the disambigguation is helpful.
The situation of PRC vs ROC is also unique because both governments claim to be the legitimate government of entire China. There are still about 20 or so countries in the world which continue to recognise the ROC government as the government of China. As there are Two Chinas the disambiguation is helpful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No primary topic, and it would be misleading to redirect to either of the two potential targets. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "President of China" is NOT the primary topic for "President of the People's Republic of China" as demonstrated by Timmyshin and for a neutral reader (such as me at least), having a disambiguation is more helpful and clarifying. Redirecting to either of the target would be rather counterproductive and misleading for a neutral observer, as noted by Lemongirl942. — Yash talk stalk 16:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:52, 9 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. Mifter (talk) 01:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Hegyi Award for Emerging Authors[edit]

Frank Hegyi Award for Emerging Authors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No real indication of notability for this award. Pinkbeast (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A literary award does not get a Wikipedia article just because its existence can technically be verified to its own self-published website about itself — it gets a Wikipedia article when reliable sources start independently writing about it. But there's nothing like that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- likely a PR driven award from a nn org, Ottawa Independent Writers. When this article is created, then it may make sense to discuss the award. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:24, 9 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 deleted by Bbb23 – WP:G5 article created by a banned/blocked user. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Lokteff[edit]

Lana Lokteff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I reviewed the sources and all but one are only name checks and quick mentions. The only lengthy coverage comes from a blog post that isn't a Reliable Source. She does show up in a Google Search, but only on non reliable sources. Does not pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:14, 2 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 deleted by Amortias – copyright infringement. (non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad ibn Haroon[edit]

Muhammad ibn Haroon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article that is a tour guide and a history book at once. FriyMan talk 19:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 2 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. as an obvious hoax. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack chugg[edit]

Jack chugg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG. I could not locate reliable sources for the claims being made in the article. If they can be located, he may be notable enough, but that remains to be seen. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:53, 2 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 19:32, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flockers[edit]

Flockers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGAME and WP:GNG. Attempted PROD but author removed template. DrStrauss talk 19:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 2 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. The article is a stub, but--per keep arguments--references exist to establish notability and this does not fall under WP:NEO. (non-admin closure) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise law[edit]

Enterprise law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO. There is no proof this is a common term. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP There are entire books on this subject. Click on books. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment. Per all those books David Tornheim points to, it's a common term, a significant category of law, and a notable subject by Wikipedia standards. If this article never develops beyond the few sentences that are there now, I could imagine ultimately redirecting it to a similar topic like companies law, but this topic is (at least potentially) not quite the same thing and for the moment, I think the appropriate course would be to keep this for at least 6-12 months and let it develop (or not). --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's real problem with law related articles (except cases). I can give you a list on important topics with few references. I think attorneys are too busy to edit wikipedia and don't rely on it--not even law students. it's a really weak spot for wikipedia IMHO. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:57, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Thompson[edit]

Betty Thompson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Biography of a television personality, written more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article and entirely unsourced but for a clutch of primary source external links. While there's definitely a valid potential notability claim here as the original host of the Canadian version of Romper Room, what we don't have is the reliable sourcing necessary to properly support an article about her as a standalone topic — I have searched every database of historical Canadian media coverage that I have access to, but all I can find is a handful of glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that are about the show, with nothing that constitutes substantive coverage about her. So while she can certainly be mentioned in the Canada section of our article about Romper Room, the quality of sourcing simply isn't there for her to get a standalone biography separately from that. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the verifiable parts of the article into the Romper Room article, per the nominator's rationale and my own search results. It's unfortunate, but there's no Significant Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources that is required by the General Notability Guideline to support a stand-alone article. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Changed !vote due to new sources. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - looking at the External Links in the article, there is one secondary source. That is a clipping from the April 11, 1994 Kitchener Record, detailing her history. One of the problems with tackling older articles like this, is that really, it's difficult to do without accessing newspapers from the time period. There's also a Kitchener Post article from 2012 that briefly summarizes her life. Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Kitchener Post is a community weekly newspaper in her own hometown, not a regionally-distributed daily newspaper — so it would be a valid source for supplementary confirmation of stray facts after she had already cleared WP:GNG on stronger sources, but it counts for exactly nothing toward the basic matter of passing GNG in the first place. If community weeklies like the Kitchener Post counted toward GNG in and of themselves, we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees and parent-teacher associations and condo boards because GNG had been met by the Kitchener Post coverage itself.
And while The Record does count for more than the Post does, we still need more than just one GNG-eligible source before GNG is passed. To get an article kept on the basis of just one source, that source would have to be confirming passage of an "automatic must-keep" criterion like "won the Giller Prize" or "got elected to Parliament as an MP" — for criteria where the basic inclusion test is conditional on the subject's passage of GNG (e.g. "was a television personality"), it takes at least four or five GNG-worthy sources to pass GNG, not just one.
And, for the record, as I already noted in my nomination statement I did access newspapers from the time period: I have a good half a dozen Canadian newspapers (including both The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star) where I can directly access archived coverage all the way back to the 19th century, and about a dozen others where I can access coverage as far back as 1981 (when she would still have been a potential subject of "Where are they now?" coverage, since she had only just recently left Romper Room and was still alive and active in her community), without so much as leaving my apartment. And I did check them all. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to check the Kitchener Record, not the Globe or Star; she was very well known in KW. I can only get the last 5 years or so of the Record, and she is still frequently name-checked 2 decades after her death. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a national edition of Romper Room, not a one-city local one, so the Globe and the Star are entirely reasonable places to search for coverage of her. And even if it had been a one-city local edition, the coverage would still have to have escaped Kitchener-Waterloo and gotten into the Globe or the Star before she could be deemed encyclopedically notable for it — with the almost completely isolated exception of politicians who clear WP:NPOL on the role itself, people of purely local notability do not normally get into Wikipedia on the basis of purely local coverage alone, precisely because of what I said above about how we would have to start keeping presidents of church bake sale committees and PTAs and condo boards.
And at any rate, we don't keep inadequately sourced articles about people without "automatic inclusion" notability claims just because it's theoretically possible that improved sourcing to cover off a GNG claim might exist somewhere we don't have the ability to track down — we keep them only if and when somebody has done the work necessary to demonstrate that improved sourcing to cover off a GNG claim does exist. "Namechecked" doesn't assist notability, either: she has to be "substantively the subject" of enough sources to clear GNG, not just "namechecked" in coverage of other related or tangential subjects. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some references to the article. Some meet WP:GNG. It's a bit sparse before 1990, as I'm afraid I can't access southwestern Ontario publications before that date. Nfitz (talk) 23:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - was inclined to let this one go, given that tracking down sources such as the K-W Record or other print publications of the era which would almost certainly have significant coverage, but is difficult to research, but would help establish at least notability on the regional scale. Also haven't had a chance to track down A History of Children's Television in English Canada, 1952-1986 to see what that might mention for Romper Room. However, thanks to Nfitz for all the work on tracking down additional references. Dl2000 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dl2000: do you think with the (now) 23 references I've added since the AFD started, that it achieves WP:GNG? Nfitz (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There now seem to be sufficient numerous and stronger independent refs albeit mostly regional. However, WP:GNG doesn't seem to require a geographic magnitude, just the sufficient presence of secondary sourcing. Dl2000 (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GNG does require coverage outside of a local area though. Due to the nature of local sources, they will obviously print more information about local events and community members. (I remember an AFD where someone pointed to coverage such as "Ms. X wins Pecan pie bake off"). Unless the subject has received coverage over a wider area, I wouldn't consider it as having satisfied GNG. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The geographic range of coverage does come into play if you're going for "passes GNG because media coverage exists" rather than "passes a specific notability criterion". By the very nature of politics, for example, the vast majority of federal MPs are always going to get the bulk of their coverage in their local media rather than consistently getting nationalized coverage — but because MPs are deemed to pass WP:NPOL, the geographic range of where their coverage is coming from doesn't actually matter. But the geographic range does matter if you're going for "GNG passed because media coverage exists" on an article that has no automatic must-keep claim under any of the SNGs — as I've often had to point out in AFD discussions (and already did earlier in this discussion, as well), if all we required for GNG was that media coverage exists, and there were no geographic range requirements on where that coverage had to be found, then we would have to start keeping articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, elementary school parent-teacher associations, condominium boards, non-winning candidates for county dogcatcher, high school and junior league athletes, the woman who lives a mile down the road from my parents who woke up one morning to find a pig in her front yard, and me. So yes, the geographic range of the coverage is relevant to the question of whether GNG is passed or not. Bearcat (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should address the sources that have been added.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the interesting question of what you were doing with the pig, that would be BLP1E - though I can see for the person in charge of the church bake sale it would accumulate. Though there's a difference between Mayberry, and a major daily newspaper that that covers an urban area of over half-a-million. There are numerous significant articles about here in the Record, and it continues over 20 years after her death. Not to mention mentions in papers from Toronto to Windsor - an area bigger than most countries. And there's also the source that meets GNG from the Waterloo library website. When I was researching, there were allusions to a 30-minute TV special after she died, but I didn't pursue that. Perhaps I should try and track it down and see if it actually happened. Nfitz (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article had problems when it was nominated - minimal sourcing, uncertain notability. Those problems have been pretty well solved by the addition of many secondary sources. It is now clear that her influence and notability were enduring and went beyond local. Kudos to User:Nfitz for the rescue. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 10 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. Very close to no consensus with only 1 !vote however the links provided show detailed reviews in the tech press likely establishing notability. Mifter (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LG Watch Style[edit]

LG Watch Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article provides no reason why this particular device is notable. It has no purpose other than advertising. (However, it would be a stretch to ask for its deletion as G11 because the advertising isn't blatant.) Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This device is exist and currently available. also not a ad. --Windwatar (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I certainly agree that the current version of the article with its sources appears to be more like advertising than an objective article, there are major reviews in Wired and other sources (e.g. [3], possibly this), when you click on news, so I believe it qualifies based on those reviews, just like a movie, book, etc. Please correct me if you believe I am wrong about that... --David Tornheim (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:36, 2 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. North America1000 09:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyawee Songmuang[edit]

Kanyawee Songmuang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a close one. It doesn't appear to meet GNG, as there are only 9 Google News results, of which 8 seem to be actually referring to her. J947 18:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 2 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 Dangerous Woman (album). A word of advice: all arguments, including those of the nominator, should be grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moonlight (Ariana Grande song)[edit]

Moonlight (Ariana Grande song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a SONG on an album. Just a song. Not a single. Not a signature song. Not a live anthem. It is not notable in any way. Kellymoat (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I've not reviewed sourcing yet, but IF there is not enough coverage, this page should be redirected, not deleted. ---Another Believer (Talk) 20:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The song has information enough to a creation of a solo article, it received positive commentaries by music critics and has a background (it was set to be the titled track of Ariana Grande's third studio album which was renamed to Dangerous Woman). Send to article to deletion is a preconception about the page that has text enough. LikeGaga (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've said this to many people --- I could write a big fluffy article about you and I. Does that make either of us notable? Kellymoat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment diving in as one of those people... if we were as well-known as an Ariana Grande song or were as closely associated with someone of such obvious notability, that might be a fair place to start from. Otherwise, it seems tendentious. I've not looked into this one properly yet, but so far the argument seems to be "it's not a single so it doesn't matter". That's not especially persuasive. The article does seem a little breathless but from a skim-read it's not clear that it's not improvable or that the subject isn't worth including. Mortee (talk) 00:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to start focusing your nominations around sourcing, or lack there of, so you can stop wasting yours and everyone's time on these sorts of arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain either way about this particular AfD (I am leaning more towards redirecting this personally), but I have to agree with the above comment. The reasons for nominating this article were extremely poorly constructed. It should be organized around the lack of reliable, third-party coverage on the song. The fact that it is an album track is irrelevant and the fact that it is not a "signature song" or a "live anthem" is also irrelevant. I would caution the nominator to be more careful in the future when constructing AfDs and to not be so condescending towards other contributors who want to discuss the notability of the subject either way. I have noticed the nominator doing similar things since I first saw them in this AfD and it is troubling. Either way, the discussion should be focused on whether or not the song is covered in reliable, third-party resources outside that of a passing mention or brief inclusion in a list. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, I feel the opposite way. We should be able to nominate articles without needing to justify why. The nomination isn't why something gets removed, the votes are. One should be able to nominate, and then let the discussion take place. I mean, certainly an article of less-than-notable status shouldn't be allowed to stay just because the nominator didn't say the right thing in the nomination. Kellymoat (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact your responsibility as the nominator to fully explain your rationale about why you believe that this article should be deleted. I am only providing advice for you for future AfD nominations as I have noticed that this is a trend with your nominations. This will prevent misinterpretation about the reasons for why you are nominating something for AfD (as pointed out by Sergecross73 in an above comment). I would encourage you to be more careful with your explanation/arguments when nominating articles in the future and to focus them more on sourcing. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please, stop being stubborn and just take the advice. If your end goal is to get non-notable articles deleted, then its in your best interest to write better nominations that don't lead to wasted time in arguing over the semantics. Its a very simple, easy adjustment to make, and it would help everyone, including you. If you just would have written "Fails GNG, no dedicated sources", over half the responses in the debate (your included) wouldn't have been necessary, and we'd probably have a consensus already, because you would have guided the discussion in the right direction. Sergecross73 msg me 13:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are public persons? We're inside of a album or an artistic work? So, your comparison is nonsense, sorry. The article has text enough (as I explained), background, positive reception and chart position. Exist a lot of articles about songs non released commercially in the Wikipedia, "Joanne (Lady Gaga song)", several Rihanna's articles (Fading (song) and various songs from Unapologetic) are examples of "just" songs with verifiable material. Concluding, there's any strong reason to deletion of the page. All text are supported by reliable sources. User: LikeGaga (Talk) 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To nominate it for deletion purely because it wasn't a single is indeed incorrect - it's not a requirement. That being said, there is a strong correlation here - most non-singles are not notable in the Wikipedia sense if the word. What it needs to come down to is whether or not there are third party sources that cover it in significant detail. Do we have sources that are largely centered around the song? Or are they all one-liners about the song ripped from album reviews and interviews. That'll be the deciding factor on whether it's kept or redirected. Sergecross73 msg me 04:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if the reviews contained in Moonlight (Ariana Grande song)#Critical reception are deemed independent, non-trivial and from reliable sources than Moonlight may meet WP:GNG, but WP:NSONG also has "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created.", so as the critical reception reviews are about the whole album then this looks shaky. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - due to lack of sourcing dedicated to the song itself. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can show otherwise, but everything I spotchecked was just passing mentions ripped from album reviews and interviews. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sergecross73's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 21:09, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Solid Communications[edit]

Vox Solid Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable and considerably promotional. This is a local publicity organization limited to Las Vegas with local references only. DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The unabashedly promotional text is a content issue that can be fixed. Most coverage is WP:LOCAL but a long profile in Working Mother magazine is undoubtedly "significant coverage in independent reliable sources" and therefore this passes WP:GNG.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 18:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The sourcing is thin, and I couldn't find additional sources in a quick search - but the interview with Working Mother, a national magazine, goes a long way toward establishing notability. I don't find the article to be unacceptably promotional. --MelanieN (talk) 01:38, 10 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 William Kumuyi#Life. Mifter (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abiodun Kumuyi[edit]

Abiodun Kumuyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A CSD-A7 was rejected by Adam9007 as 'Coverage in reliable sources' . I challenge not only that assertion, but I also fail to see where the article demonstrates significance or importance. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I'm not sure if this is a WP:CIR issue or something else, but the number of baseless declines has been growing in the last few weeks. There is no assertion of significance in this article, much less notability. A7 applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's the spouse of a notable person, which means, at worst, it should be merged or redirected. Hence A7 does not apply. Adam9007 (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that simply being a spouse of a notable somehow guarantees at worst a redirect. That's news to me. But in fairness, being "editor in chief of the Christian Women Mirror" could be seen as something worth an Afd? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source for that shows it is the magazine of her husband's megachurch, which to me is not a credible claim of significance given the context. I'm fine with letting the AfD run now that it is here, but I disagree with the decline. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: From WP:FAILN - "Non-notable topics with closely related notable articles or lists are often merged into those pages". From WP:INVALIDBIO - "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B". The purpose of CSD is to quickly delete stuff that obviously has no chance of anything other than delete in a discussion so as not to clog up XfD. I explain this in more detail here (WP:A7M is also a good read). So it seems both common sense and the guidelines say that the worst case scenario in such cases is a redirect. Adam9007 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Key word there is may, its not required, and probably shouldn't be included unless the person did something notable in their own right or had a special significance to the article subject beyond just being married. All we know about this woman is that her husband appointed her to be the editor of the magazine that served his church. That's not a credible assertion of significance, and I don't see a redirect as being needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not an A7 though: further investigation is needed to determine the best course of action. CSD is for cases where deletion is extremely obvious on the very face of the page. Adam9007 (talk) 22:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict): Being a spouse or other relative of someone else with an article surely brings no exemption from CSD A7, hence WP:NOTINHERITED? The independent sources in the article relate to a remarriage and give little more than passing mention of the deceased. Indeed one indicates that the subject had lived outside the "public glare". She does seem to have had appointed positions within the church started by her husband, including "editor-in-chief of the well-circulated Women Mirror magazine published by the church", and there is a bylined biographical piece here but I am not seeing enough to suggest distinct encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AllyD: WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply to A7, as explained above. I have not once ever said that notability is inherited. Adam9007 (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep subject of article clearly passes WP:GNG which is Wikipedia's basic yardstick when establishing notability of an articles subject. If spouse of the aforementioned individual is more notable than she is, it is of no concern to anybody as subject of our discussion has been mentioned in popular recognized press numerous times I really do not see subject coming short of WP:GNG guidelines

Furthermore, there are unreferenced, poorly written, and undisclosed paid created articles we should be talking about & not a good quality article like the above. Let's focus on real issues bothering this environment. Celestina007 (talk) 21:22, 02 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: A redirect to the page on William Kumuyi or Deeper Life Bible Church might be possible, though neither page currently mentions the subject. Adding text from the current page to either of these targets might amount be WP:UNDUE in the absence of clear notability evidence? AllyD (talk) 08:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being the wife of a prominent preacher is not enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant a separate article. A search of the subject shows circulated news coverage about her death. Apart from this source, no other source discusses the subject independently.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's surprising how I wasn't able to get many significant coverage on this woman. I ordinarily would have predicted she will be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. She is extremely popular in Nigerian Christian circles, especially with the women. I agree with Adam that speedy deletion shouldn't apply in this case. Darreg (talk) 04:32, 3 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. Mifter (talk) 00:52, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Hansson[edit]

Karin Hansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet GNG or PROF Atsme📞📧 17:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems like she is quite well known (relatively speaking) for the "Association for Temporary Art" group that she co-formed. I found two or three decent Google book scans and added them. This tells me there are likely many unscanned items, and items in Swedish too. My feeling from finding some good refs and from the history is that she is just barely notable enough. Note that theee does also seem to be another professor with the same name in Sweden, although the namesake is in the English field. 104.163.140.193 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Swedish artist. Included in the Swedish Wikipedia since 2006.--Ipigott (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage in reliable secondary sources is minimal. Every single source presented has a very brief mention about the subject. There is not one good sources and certainly not enough to write an article per WP:WHYN.
  • Some of these sources are essentially of the form "the Association of Temporary Art,..co-founded by Karin_Hansson...is...". It then goes on to describe some of the exhibitions associated with the organisation but doesn't discuss anything about the subject's contribution (in fact, it mentions the name of other artists).
  • The subject wouldn't pass WP:PROF at the moment.
  • In case of WP:ARTIST#1, I am unable to find any sources which substantiates the claim that "she is one of the "pioneers in political art and new media""
This requires more discussion and I would appreciate if someone can find better sources. The article as it is uses primary sources and has been clearly created by someone with a conflict of interest. See Special:Contributions/Kaihanhan. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:45, 9 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) 04:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Estonia[edit]

Why there is an opinion "Baltic Estonia" needs to be deleted but propagandistic, "containing new information" articles like "Nordic Estonia" can shine and desinform the users of wikipedia? People, I need you help. An encyclopedia-it should be the place there is an verified and objective information. You can not post a map with Turkey on there and say "This is the map od European Union" and write there "Turkey has shown a deep interest in joining to European Union". You can´t to it as Turkey is not in EU. But why is possible to BS the the general public with wrong information about a small country. I do not want to start any editing war with the article of nordic estonia. Are there any legal, civilized way to reach fair-mindedness? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Räcx2 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content fork from Estonia that was speedily redirected and then reverted. No real content that isn't in the Estonia article, and it seems like an odd redirect or search term to be honest. Could possibly qualify for A10, but bringing it here for more discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reconsidered my initial skepticism and I think the article may be kept. After all, there is an article on Nordic Estonia and while the naming of both articles is unsatisfying, they do cover the subject of the debate on whether Estonia should be considered a Baltic or a Nordic country, which is relevant. Both articles are at the same time in a real need of cleaning up and editing. Yakikaki (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially redirected this article to Baltic states, and I still think that between that article and Estonia there is no new material in this article. However, I do not know the area enough to tell if there should be an article discussing the place of Estonia amongst Baltic vs. Nordic states - if this is a genuine debate it could be covered through a merge into Nordic Estonia under a new name. Based on current content, references, and what I can find I think this should be merged and redirected into Baltic states. |→ Spaully ~talk~  21:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to explain the article "Baltic Estonia". The article wants to explain how wide and deep-rooted actually are Estonia´s ties with other Baltic states especially Latvia. It gives some new information about that how these two countries are one unite in many aspects. The thing is that there are some wikipedia fighters from Estonia who have fulfilled wikipedia with in my opinin 100% propagandistic stuff there they try to "prove" that Estonia is not Baltic but "Nordic". Those authors know perfectly what are the Nordic countries in reality and what aren´t but they try to brainwash wikipedia readers and make them to believe that things are so like they believe. The article Nordic Estonia and Estonian ammendments to article nordic countries is biased and does not fulfill the wiki criterions in my opinion as it is stump speech and propaganda. Behind there is 1-2 estonian persons with Swedish roots. They represent in real life sort of 0,..0001% of Estonians. Their activity is ridiculous https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Estonia_cannot_into_Nordic.jpg Sorry for being a bit emotional but the way how wikipedia is used as propaganda tool is very annoying, hypocritical and based on cherry picked and completely marginal facts... It is regrettable that such things happen in wikipedia. The article Baltic Estonia wants to point out that Estonia is really a Baltic country. This is a question of dignity and staidness what we unfortunately seem to lack as we want to be anybody else.
    I kindly please to remain article Baltic Estonia as separate article (at least as long as "Nordic Estonia" exists!) -- Preceding comment added by Räcx2 on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion [4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talk • contribs) 04:07, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. As an Estonian editor, I take issue with much of what this editor has stated. As much of it seems to be borderline ranting and hysteria ("Estonia can into Nordic?" - an imageboard meme, really?), I won't even address those statements. I will say, however, that wanting to create an article merely based on what seems to me to be some kind of peculiar resentments seems ridiculous. Wanting to create a Wiki page as a "payback" for some perceived slight or personal grievance is never a good idea. Räcx2 states that "The article Baltic Estonia wants to point out that Estonia is really a Baltic country." So, he/she is creating an article to angrily prove his opinion? Anyway, beyond that, I have no issue with an article discussing Estonia's links to Latvia and Lithuania...oh, wait. We have that...it's called Baltic States. ExRat (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic of this article seems to be Estonia (existing article), but with a very biased point of view. It appears that the only intent of this article is to convey the similarities between Estonia and the other Baltic States in an essay format. I believe that these similarities would be better conveyed within existing articles, as mentioned by others. --NoGhost (talk) 03:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose then to merge the article with Estonia and/or Baltic states, but in fairness I think that also Nordic Estonia should be merged then, as well. Either that or a common article where both of these views get explained. And please again note, the views should be explained and presented, not defended or attacked. And please, all involved, use a civil tone here and in Wikipedia in general. Just state your opinions and your reasons for them and we can all move along. Thanks. Yakikaki (talk) 07:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:19, 5 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) 04:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Encarnacion Montero[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Claudio Encarnacion Montero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to be notable under WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO – there's not a "significant" role in here, and in most cases their credited role is not even listed in the 'cast' list at the relevant Wikipedia article on the film, etc. In addition, the page looks to be a mess of one, and possibly two, separate COI editors. And now we've got one of them trying to claim the subject's "death" without a shred of reliable sourcing. A highly problematic article – suggest deleting A.S.A.P. (See also the logs for this page, and this related discussion.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See also another deletion that did not show up in the list. Also delete resulted. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird – that AfD seems to have a malformed title(?). Perhaps an Admin can move it to a correct title? – Because it should definitely be included in the listing above. The current AfD is now the 4th AfD on this subject, which appears to be a hoax. It looks like salting of this article should be considered after this version gets deleted... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm a bit suspicious that this is mostly fake info out on the web and in credits. Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR and WP:MUSICBIO anyway. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup: Yep, in checking further, none of the English-language sources used come close to verifying what is claimed about the subject. I can't speak to the Spanish-language sources, but this whole article looks more and more like a hoax to me. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where his roles are confirmed they have not been major enough to add towards notability. The fact that much of what is said is not in the given citations makes the accuracy of the article highly questionable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 5 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 speedied Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MinkaXXX[edit]

MinkaXXX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination withdrawn: page was speedily deleted under A7. GSMR (talk) 16:17, 2 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Masaji Taira[edit]

Masaji Taira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustain article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. After removing links to his students businesses/web pages and a quote from a blog the remaining sources are to the landing page of a magazine and to, per its URL, a blog. I could find nothing other than a couple of passing mentions when I searched. Jbh Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the French source and AGF that the National Geographic source is as claimed since I do not understand Spanish. The YouTube link may be a WP:COPYVIO since I can not see if it is from the official site. if not the link needs to be removed and the program simply cited. Time stamps should be added for claims it is being used to support as well. New sources provided by Xaspersted here.

    The article should be trimmed of COI/Promo material and re-written based on what is available in these independent RS. Jbh Talk 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 18:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Jbh Talk 18:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. The only non-trivial article is the interview in Blitz magazine which was co-authored by his student/colleague Bryson Keenan. I don't believe that meets the definition of independent. Papaursa (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait there are a few European articles, not authored by students, that may be sufficient. I've reached out to his European representatives for links. --Xasperated (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC) — Xasperated (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep (weak) by clicking on Books, his name is mentioned in a number of books of various authors. Unless nearly all of those books are self-published, I think he is probably notable. The WP:RS in the article, however, is severely lacking. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jbhunley:, @Papaursa:, @Johnpacklambert: Care to reconsider based on what I just wrote? --David Tornheim (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These look like passing mentions to me. He may be well known within his niche but the coverage is just not there. Jbh Talk 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree that these appear to be passing mentions and insufficient to show GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  15:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentt while the book references are encoraging they seem to tend towatds short references that seem to only indicate that the subject is a martial arts teacher. I think they still fall short of what we would want for coverage that rises to the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral On further reflection I think especiially the second book source has some potential. However I really can' t decide so I will leave the issue for now. I am editing on my phone and maybe I could get a better sense if I did so on my computer. I am not leaning anyway at present. Mainly I wrote this to say striking delete is not saying I support keep but that I have no view either way at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the two books by Michael Clarke are well known and well presented. They are not self published - even to some being translated into spanish. Clarke is not a Taira student. Clarke makes many references to Taira in his blog http://shinseidokandojo.blogspot.com. At one point there were other references in the article to discussions in traditional karate forums - they were removed/edited by someone, but support being well known outside of his group. Forum posts are unfortunately ephemeral. There are also many mentions of Taira's teaching in the online videos and sold DVDs of Paul Enfield. Unfortunately, while Paul is no longer a student of Taira he once was. From my somewhat biased POV, the Okinawan Goju Ryu community is fairly small, the one huge figure being Morio Higaonna, but within the community on Okinawa Taira is notable and known. As will the reference to the French martial arts magazine, and the fact that he's running seminars in Europe in UK, France, Italy, Portugal, Switzerland, Hungary that shows some level of demand. Switzerland and Hungary are both new this year, and one is for a non Goju organisation, showing spread outside of his group. Xasperated (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment changed !vote to keep, since a withdraw is not possible with standing delete !votes, based on the new sources provided [5]. Jbh Talk 05:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I am changing my vote to neutral. I'm not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The French article is the only source I'm willing to count, but I must admit I'm not willing to watch 45 minutes of video in Spanish to see if that coverage is significant. I'm still leaning towards delete, but not strongly enough to fight about. Papaursa (talk) 22:25, 3 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 23:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Mikaze[edit]

Kid Mikaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Kid Mikaze is married to Sasha Banks, a notable WWE personality. Kid Mikaze does not appear to be otherwise notable, and notability is not inherited. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 2 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. The consensus is that the subject of the article has not received the significant coverage in independent, reliable sources needed to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The subject was also not found to meet any of the additional notability criteria for entertainers at this time. Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Daniels[edit]

Rick Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Most of the sources I could find were about Rick Daniels the publisher, who is not the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 2 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 - not notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Rafi Puthukkudi[edit]

Mohamed Rafi Puthukkudi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:BIO. I cannot find sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The article probably satisfies WP:CSD A7, though. GammaRadiator (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:41, 2 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) 04:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chidinma Okeke[edit]

Chidinma Okeke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ugh. This pretends to be a biographical article but is in reality a collection of tabloid tittle-tattle. She won a probably-not-notable competition, which would not confer notability (WP:NOTINHERITED) and that is it. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep clearly passes WP:GNG. Miss Anambra is a notable competition that has received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources. Stanleytux (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as textbook WP:BLP1E. Beauty-queen-makes-a-sex-tape is hardly an unusual event. Winning a state-level beauty pageant does not confer automatic notability. No substantial biographical depth outside the event. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article obviously doesn't fall in the one event category. Subject won a notable state level beauty pageant and then was later involved in a sex scandal which received global media coverage. The article should be allowed to remain because it passes Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Stanleytux (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Gene93k: I agree with Stanleytux that the subject is not notable for only one event. In addition to being known for winning a state pageant, she is known for her leaked sex-tape. This is two events, not one.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We create articles on people on Wikipedia without considering the real life impact of the pages on the lives on people. This article is well written, and does not pass for WP:ATTACK, but nomatter how well we try to write the article, the sex scandal must always be included. I try to put myself in the shoes of this young lady, let us remember that she didn't willingly create and release the sex tape, infact she was possibly blackmailed. She even denied it at first when it was first released. I saw her updates on Instagram during that period and I felt her pain, Ayo Makun described it as a traumatic period for her, she wouldn't want anything that included the sex story to continue, if she had her way she would want this article deleted from Wikipedia. That being said, I think the article is weakly notable (this is not a vote for it to stay), but I do not want it to remain on Wikipedia. Darreg (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even former US President Bill Clinton has a page about his sexual encounter with Lewinsky. Don't go too far Darreg, remember there's a Wikipedia rule called WP:COI. Stanleytux (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were based on my empathy as a human being, I follow her on IG, the same way I Megan Fox, Beyonce, Genevieve, Omotola, etc. I haven't met her in real life, neither do I have any connection with her or anything that represent her. Just needed to state that. Darreg (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete sub-national winners of beauty pageants are almost never notable for that. In this case the coverage beyond that is too tabloidish to justify having an article. We lack truly reliable source and indepth coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I concur with you on the first point you made, but disagree with you when you said, "we lack truly reliable source of the subject". A few of the sources in the article are reliable, including The Guardian, Vanguard, and YNaija. These sources are reliable due to them having editorial oversight. Just thought I made that clear. I don't want you to think that all of the sources in the article are unreliable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The subject of this article hasn't done anything outside of winning a state level beauty pageant (whose notability has been brought into question). The coverage she received from her leaked sex-tape isn't enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. If she ventures into modeling or acting, she may be notable for stand-alone inclusion in the future.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think she will ever go into any profession that will put her in the public eye. I presume she's trying to stay away from the limelight. Darreg (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darreg: That is your opinion Darreg. I know it's difficult being blackmailed like that, but she shouldn't allow the sex scandal define her. She has the power to change the perception that people have about her. If she stays true to herself, she will get to where she needs to be.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for considerations of privacy; no reason to keep an article on someone notable for one event when such page can be harmful. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:03, 8 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. North America1000 22:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darwinbox[edit]

Darwinbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a number of sectorial business news stories about this new company, but nothing to suggest it meets the Notability guidelines for products or organisations. Content seems predominantly promotional in nature. Parkywiki (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this content belongs on the company's web site; not here. Coverage that comes up is PR driven. No value to the project at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Maybe eventually, but not yet. There simply is no coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I trimmed some of the fat as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too advert-sounding to be included in an encyclopedia. Had to re-trim to fat that CNMall41 originally cut out, as it was restored. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP -- HighKing++ 15:36, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:44, 9 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 Procedural close. Article moved to draft namespace by the author.. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SycAmour (band)[edit]

SycAmour (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seem to fail WP:GNG. An article that relies on snecking Facebook??? Gimme a break. A paltry 4,600 hits on Google, headed by dreck sources like facebook, YouTube & Amazon. TheLongTone (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is some coverage of this band. Searches found many listings of this band performing at some event. There was a national rock review interview and a loudwire album/video article. A discography exists at AllMusic. Still not enough for WP:BAND although if better sources are found I am happy to reconsider. Gab4gab (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article was moved to draft space by the creator. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:39, 6 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. Mz7 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Printful[edit]

Printful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An old declined speedy, on the grounds that there are sources. None substantial enough imo; this is just another promotional article on an unremarkable business. TheLongTone (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an unremarkable private company going about its business; content generally being corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is one of several linked articles on The Draugiem Group and its ventures, with material about other start-ups as a significant proportion of this article's content and references. The blog and local coverage is insufficient and I am seeing nothing else to indicate that this T-shirt and poster printing start-up is of encyclopaedic notability, whether by WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:47, 9 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) 04:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilien Brabec[edit]

Maximilien Brabec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional biography lacking independent sources. I am unable to find any reliable independent sources that discuss the subject in any depth. Fails WP:ANYBIO. - MrX 11:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 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 Joi Cardwell. Kurykh (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Life (Joi Cardwell album)[edit]

A Beautiful Life (Joi Cardwell album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I changed this imo nn recording artyicle into a redirect, but the redirect was reverted by the article creator because it "is notable for containing several re-record remixes." I really do not think this cuts the mustard since a huge number of albums contain similar material. TheLongTone (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore redirect - non-notable album. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Joi_Cardwell article where this album is already mentioned. Listing at 233 in the Oricon chart suggests possible notability. However no significant coverage seems to exist in independent reliable sources. Gab4gab (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 4 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 World Baseball Classic. North America1000 22:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2021 World Baseball Classic[edit]

2021 World Baseball Classic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL As the article itself says: "The 2021 World Baseball Classic has not been discussed yet." I'm fine with a speedy deletion. Or any other solution - a redirect, userfy, draft space article? - that addresses the issue. Shirt58 (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as a logical suggestion. Lourdes 06:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC) Delete . May have perhaps been speedied as no content. Can be done even now. Lourdes 09:36, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Looks like a quadrennial tournament which will (likely but not definitely) occur in 2021. Retrospective tournaments have articles so this tournament can be recreated when it becomes more suitable to the time. Ajf773 (talk) 10:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC). Vote changed to Redirect to World Baseball Classic as it seems logical. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Apart from WP:TOOSOON one sentence saying it is a topic that has not been discussed does not make for an article.Dunarc (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:TOOSOON. How sure are we that it will be held in 2021 and not another year? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Baseball Classic. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 10:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Baseball Classic, as it is usually done with other "too soon" league articles. Asturkian (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Baseball Classic as a reasonable search term. ansh666 05:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect certainly a reasonable search term. Lepricavark (talk) 14:17, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Here is an RS which states unless the tournament brings in enough revenue it wont return in 2021 [6]. Based on that, until it actually is officially announced it shouldn't have a page. - GalatzTalk 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the tournament were to be confirmed, the page could easily be expanded quickly. For example, Israel as of right now is the first team to automatically qualify based on their performance this year. By weeks end we will know of 12 qualified teams. - GalatzTalk 17:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Galatz: Do we have a source saying they'll definitely use the same qualification process in 2021 as this year? Tne 2017 article seems to assume that, but without reliable sources saying they'll do that and not expand qualifying or something, I'd be reluctant for 2021 to have an independent article. And as I recall, it was several years after 2013 before they made an official announcement on the qualification process for this year. If there's nothing definitive, it should be redirected per above. If there are reliable sources saying that's definitely the qualification process that will be used, that's sufficient for a keep. I haven't seen anything official yet, though, only things that just assume they'll use the same process. Holding off a formal vote for now pending investigation of this. Also, the source above is just speculation that the tournament will be canceled without enough revenue, not an official statement from MLB or the IBAF. Smartyllama (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • SB Nation is saying the top 3 teams in each qualify for the tournament in 2021 [7]. It is statistically impossible for Israel to finish in 4th place since there is no way all 4 teams could be 2-1. Therefore per WP:CALC we can state, using SB Nation's criteria that they have qualified. - GalatzTalk 18:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks like this article is a redirect already. This discussion should be closed, and if anyone thinks it should be deleted, or become a full article, they can take it to WP:RFD. This is not the right forum. Smartyllama (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It was redirected after the discussion started, so this is still valid. ansh666 19:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm un-redirecting it so this can continue. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I updated the article slightly, since it had no use in its old format. I'd assume we'd want to keep the article, since teams are qualifying for the tournament through the current tournament, even though there's a chance it may not return. SportingFlyer (talk) 08:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until we're sure this is happening and we get an official announcement on the qualifying format (as opposed to just sources assuming we'll see the same format again, which they did four years ago as well even though there wasn't an official announcement for some time after that.) The edit history will prove useful in recreating it at that time, and even if it's canceled in the end, it's still a plausible search term and should be redirected. (See 1942 FIFA World Cup and 1946 FIFA World Cup) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 World Baseball Classic, which was closed as redirect in July of 2013. Smartyllama (talk) 13:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you see here [8], the page for 2017 that was redirected looked basically like the current one does now. - GalatzTalk 17:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mine is conditional: Keep if we can find a source confirming the qualified teams for 2021, as then this will be noteworthy. However, I can't find any on the official website, so for now I'd Redirect and update the 2017 page to remove all references to 2021 qualification. Lots of journalism which assumes third place qualifies. SportingFlyer (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In theory, we could put a template on the page similar to that at 2017 FIFA Club World Cup and 2018 FIFA Club World Cup that states it is based on the current format and is subject to change. Whether we should is a matter for discussion, but there's precedent for doing so. Of course, as mentioned above with the AfD back in 2013 for this year's edition, there's also precedent for not doing so. It's also worth noting that the 2017 and 2018 Club World Cups have a confirmed host, which is generally considered sufficient to create the article, while the 2021 WBC does not. And criteria for including information in the article are not the same as criteria for having the article in the first place. Smartyllama (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to World Baseball Classic. JTP (talk • contribs) 17:39, 9 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. WP:SK#1 (nominator withdrew) and WP:SNOW. As an aside, how good or bad a player is or the team they're on has no bearing whatsoever on notability. That said, here's hoping the Jayhawks are better this year :) (non-admin closure) ansh666 06:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Montell Cozart[edit]

Montell Cozart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not received any major national attention outside of routine sports reporting, never received a major award, never was even nominated to an all-conference team, and has not and will not be inducted into the College Football Hall of Fame because of a mediocre career at a school that hasn't had a winning season in 9 years. Rockchalk717 08:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Cozart was a starting quarterback for a Power Five program. He has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources and passes WP:GNG. A search of newslibrary.com turns up over 100 hits during the years 2012 to 2017 for "montell cozart" and in which "cozart" is part of the headline. See here. Examples of such significant coverage can be provided if desired. Cbl62 (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Cbl62: You might want to check that link again because that does not work. Run a google news search on him, the only articles you find are either stats, or various Kansas newspaper and news station websites reporting he has transferred, which falls under "routine sports reporting" which fails WP:NCOLLATH. Being a starting quarterback at power five conference does make you notable, especially at a school that has struggled to win games against FBS teams over the last few years. In addition you might want to go back and read WP:GNG because it says "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included". So you still have to follow notability guidelines for the article type and this is a BLP on a college athlete therefore WP:NCOLLATH needs to be used to determine notability.--Rockchalk717 02:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, I refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Willis an article with the same requirements, he is starting quarterback at Kansas (the current starting quarterback in fact) with no coverage other then what is considered routine coverage that was deleted using the same criteria for deletion as this article.--Rockchalk717 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Final comment, I did manually do a search on that website and none of the sources fall under "national media attention". He does have a couple articles that are outside of routine sports reporting, but not on the national level. All of those articles are from Kansas.com Wichita Eagle's website (my hometown newspaper), KansasCity.com Kansas City Star's website and CJOnline.com Topeka Capital-Journal's websites, all of which are local sports reporting not national. Truth be told, most skill position starters on power 5 teams could meet WP:GNG, that doesn't necessarily mean they need an article, which is why you turn to subject specific notability guidelines as well so since this is a BLP on a college athlete we use WP:NCOLLATH.--Rockchalk717 03:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockchalk717: The Ryan Willis AfD was never properly linked to the list of American football-related deletion discussions and thus did not receive input from those knowledgeable about American football biographies (a total of one "delete" vote was cast). Please include such a link in any future American football AfDs you initiate. Moreover, it is well established that WP:NCOLLATH is an inclusionary standard intended to identify categories of folks where the vast, overwhelming majority indisputably pass WP:GNG. It is not an exclusionary standard, and GNG remains the governing principle where NCOLLATH is not satisfied. See, e.g., Jon Abbate, Marcus Williams, Trace McSorley, Chris Salvi. Cbl62 (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment then I will back off and accept defeat (and also recommend an ADMIN closes this AFD as keep) since I apparently have misunderstood notability guidelines. As I stated earlier, most skill position players that play in the power conferences would meet GNG guidelines. NCOLLATH needs to state that an article subject can fail those guidelines but can still have an article if it passes GNG. More specifically the part NCOLLATH that mentions "routine coverage" needs to be what gets fine tuned. It can be easy misunderstand those guidelines as being that if the college athlete doesn't meet those guidelines they shouldn't have an article.--Rockchalk717 02:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to back off. Those are the guidelines and the way we do things, but they (we) could be wrong. I know I'm wrong a lot. But if you still want to withdrawal then an Admin can close anytime.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a WP:GNG pass, per Cbl62's research and sources. WP:GNG trumps all other Wikiproject-specific notability guidelines. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:05, 6 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 as a hoax per my rationale below. There's no official confirmation of the title, so any album names put out before Lil' Kim or one of her reps posts the album title should be considered a hoax title. We cannot rely on the media for this, as they seem to be citing this as a title because they're looking at Wikipedia for their source. If someone can show me proof that Lil' Kim or an authoritative source (ie, a rep) has said this is a title, even tentatively, then I'll restore it.. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow (Lil' Kim album)[edit]

Black Widow (Lil' Kim album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found no direct quotes from Lil' Kim or her management that the album is to be called Black Widow. The Vibe article cited in the article says that the album name was taken from her Wikipedia page. This seems like a made up name, unless actual sources can be found. There is no release date for her next studio album that I can find. I think this should be removed until there is an actual announcement. Melonkelon (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agreed. This shouldn't even be turned into a redirect, because unless somebody can cite a reliable source (i.e. not a gossip site like MSN or a radio station that mixes unsourced quotes from Lil' Kim with a title to appear to give credibility to the latter) confirming Lil' Kim ever named this as a prospective title, then I think it was made up. There is also a Lil' Kim editor who appears to have contributed to the article and habitually fabricated information and "confirmed" titles for songs that are not actually in the sources they cite. They also recently created Revelation (Lil' Kim album) (which I have redirected), citing Lil' Kim's recent interview with Billboard, despite no mention whatsoever of the title Revelation in the article. That article should also be deleted. Ss112 07:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is starting to get reported on in the media with people giving the album this name because it's listed here. Given that there's zero confirmation as to this title and the only places that list this title are either outlets that explicitly state that they got this title from Wikipedia or were released after this content was added to Lil' Kim's article. I'm leaning heavily towards speedying this as a hoax because while she is working on a new album, there's zero confirmation from her or anyone official that this is even a work in progress title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm just going to close this as a hoax. I can't see this closing any other way, given that we have no official confirmation here and at least one of the editors that created the page is known to repeatedly add unsourced content - case in point is that they tried making their own article for this album, but under the title "Revelations". There will be a fifth album, but until the artist herself or one of her official reps releases the album name, anything that's posted should be treated as a hoax title. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:32, 2 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. Important to note is that the Turkish Wikipedia may have notability requirements (if any) that are different from those of the English Wikipedia. Kurykh (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Şerif Erol[edit]

Şerif Erol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a judge only has two sources, which contain his name in promotions lists. A BEFORE search turns-up no English-language sources; identifying Turkish language sources is more problematic as this is a common name. Suggest delete per BLP. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly a senior enough judge for an article. However many judges it has, it is the highest court of appeal in the land. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Submit as AfD on Turkish Wikipedia instead -- Otherwise I am on the fence: Good arguments for and against keeping. It does appear he was on the high court, but I agree the sourcing looks pretty weak, and trying to look up the Turkish sources is a lot of work. I looked at the Turkish Wikipedia Entry and it is about the same. I wonder if it would be better to try and submit the AfD on the Turkish site so those who can read the sources in Turkish and know more about law in Turkey can make a decision? I think that is the way to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Adem20: Given that you created this article, could you please find some more reliable sources (RS) and list it in the order of importance? I agree with others that the current WP:RS is weak, but if the subject was on the highest court, I would think there should be more coverage and probably state websites that show his participation. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:38, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turan Falcıoğlu[edit]

Turan Falcıoğlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article on a judge only has one source, which contains his name in a promotions list. A BEFORE search turns-up no English-language sources; identifying Turkish language sources is more problematic as this is a common name. The article creator has been blocked so I can't ask him/her. Suggest delete per BLP. DarjeelingTea (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete / Comment - I agree with your deletion rationale, but are you referring to User:Adem20 when you say that the article creator has been blocked? He seems to still be able to edit. Pishcal (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies! Sorry to Adem20. I had two tabs open in my browser simultaneously and was looking at the wrong editor userpage. Adem20 is still with us. Again, my apologies, for this error in identification. DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:34, 2 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. All right, everybody apparently agrees that this should not be an article about this supposed music style, but we do not agree whether it should be deleted outright, made into a dab page or redirected to something about boats. I think that deletion of the present content should not be controversial, on this basis, as a first step. Editors can continue to attempt to resolve editorially what else should occupy this space.  Sandstein  09:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark blues[edit]

Dark blues (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced WP:NEO, can find no clear sources (only ambiguous review mentions which could just as plausibly be describing a particular blues artist as being "dark"). Article provides no example artists as clues, and nothing links here, the navbox addition being rejected as unsourced. McGeddon (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful for directing readers to topic of this name per WP:DAB. Andrew D. (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: User:Andrew Davidson is referring to his replacement of the article with a disambiguation page which does not mention the supposed music genre at all here, rather than the subject of the AfD. I've reverted that edit per WP:EDITATAFD. --McGeddon (talk) 18:45, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:EDITATAFD states "You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period." I have made a similar constructive update when the nominator previously tried to prod it. They keep reverting for perverse reasons as they don't want the content that they revert to. This seems disruptive and they are misusing the rollback feature for this purpose. See also dog in the manger. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • EDITAFD goes on to say "There are, however, a few restrictions upon how you may edit an article: You must not blank the article". Removing all the content from an article and replacing it with an unrelated disambiguation page is effectively blanking it. I objected to you redirecting a day-old article to an unrelated subject when it didn't meet any speedy deletion criteria, and you (perversely?) objected to me putting the prod template back up after that disagreement, so here we are (weeks after that prod would have resolved) with an AfD. --McGeddon (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, WP:BLANK explains that "page blanking means editing a page so as to leave it completely blank". My edits have maintained consistent content throughout such as the link to the Oxford University Boat Club, which is a significant meaning of this title. Making the page a red link would be disruptive and McGeddon should please leave well alone rather than engaging in endless process for its own sake. Andrew D. (talk) 19:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oxford University Boat Club, or like Light Blues, it could redirect to the more general Blue Boat. It's a very commonly used nickname and while the capitalisation isn't quite spot on, it's the sort of thing we'd expect our readers to type into the search box. I would imagine they wouldn't be terribly disappointed to discover it was the OUBC nickname. Would seem a unfair to favour the Tabs over Oxon in this case... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:34, 2 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 evidence of notability, via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, has been presented during this discussion. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:32, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LiveAuctioneers[edit]

LiveAuctioneers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A fourteen-year-old company (according to the article) which has only managed to amass passing mentions and a short Huffington Post article. Calton | Talk 01:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 03:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: May only be a stub, but it appears to pass WP:GNG. –Matthew - (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does it "appear to pass WP:GNG"? There are no references provided that meet the criteria in WP:RS. Passing references to things that have been auctioned using this company are not sufficient and passing references or inclusions in lists are likewise not accepted as references for the purposes of establishing notability. Have you discovered other references? -- HighKing++ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References do not meet WP:RS and therefore notability has not been established. -- HighKing++ 14:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 04:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would recommend for the closing admin to close this as a 'delete'. This is one of the final two discussions listed at WP:OLD. J947 21:46, 10 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 Fifth Harmony. czar 03:50, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Brooke[edit]

Ally Brooke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No relevance aside from being a member of Fifth Harmony. All that little information fits on the group's article. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Fifth Harmony: If she makes a solo career for herself and becomes notable enough for her own article, then I recommend recreating it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:08, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendranath[edit]

Dipendranath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It looks like the subject is a published author, but I am not seeing evidence of notability. KDS4444 (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dipendranath Bandyopadhyay is an eminent Bengali writer with few information in Internet. I feel this very fact deserves his entry in Wikipedia. There are other such writers like Debesh Ray, Asim Ray who don't have a Wikipedia page. Contemporaries like Sandipan Chattopadhyay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandipan_Chattopadhyay though have a page Subhamay (talk) 03:24, 2 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. Opinions are divided, but a renomination now that the article is less overtly promotional is conceivable.  Sandstein  09:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sigfox[edit]

Sigfox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Part of a promotional campaign for the company and its executives. If the article is read careful, the figures it gives suggesting importance are actually projections to 2020, The extent of the article is mainly obtained by saying things several times over, e.g. "arrival in Denmark. ...thus joins the list of countries including ..... " Almost everything given is planning or preliminary stages. I'm reluctant to support deletion of an article with extensive references,but the references as would be expected are mostly PR or notices or speculation about plans. It has announced a great many partnerships, and there are at least 2 press releases cited for each of them. Several companies have purchased the product. It lists them all, with 2 or 3 or 4 press releases for each of them. Any number of such references does not add up to notability -- it just documents an extensive PR campaign. The article was written by one of our more extensive undeclared paid editors, before they got blocked. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this advertorially toned content belongs on the company web cite, not in the encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes notability as far as I can tell, and with all the promotional noise pruned from it, it can still certainly make for an informative article yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. There is some inappropriate advertising blurb, but the core content is useful and appropriate. Brightondub (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer the account Brightondub above has recorded 3 edits, the last ones prior to the !vote above occurred in 2009. -- HighKing++ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unquestionably advertised and, including recent improvements, there's been no guaranteed signs of actual convincing, thus delete by that alone. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plenty of WP:RS on the subject, such as [9]. Agree with AdventurousSquirrel. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The inclusion of the book reference above swings it for me but the article needs a lot of pruning. I'll give it a first pass to remove the obvious forward-looking statements and puffery. -- HighKing++ 14:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed significant portions of the article including all of the PR references and forward-looking statements and PR-announced business deals and I've added 3 references (including the one mentioned above) that all pass WP:RS. -- HighKing++ 15:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Kudos to User:HighKing for the large cleanup of the promotional content in the article. My concern is the remaining references seem to rely too much on trade publications and press releases to qualify for WP:CORP. The above referenced book source, although a little more comprehensive than some of the other sources, is none the less a trade publication from the proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Information and Software Technologies. After reviewing the sources both in en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia (nothing helpful, all press releases) and eliminating the press releases the remainder of the sources don't appear to be sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I was unable to find more significant coverage in G-Searches, HighBeam or NYTimes mostly PR or trade publications. CBS527Talk 15:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbs527: Not sure if you saw I also added two other book references. Links in my comment below. -- HighKing++ 18:00, 4 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) 04:49, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Hoffmann (pilot born 1966)[edit]

Werner Hoffmann (pilot born 1966) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested A7. A lieutenant colonel who heads a pilot school and can also paint. All of the coverage is either broken links or seems to be routine/trivial. Finding news coverage is more difficult because the name seems to be pretty common, but the claim of significance here seems to be that he is the commander of the PC-7 Team, which does not meet even the guidance of WP:SOLDIER. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: There are more Werner Hoffmann Pilots on eng. Wikipedia. Searching for "Werner Hoffmann (pilot born 1966)" is not very effective/ useful. Better Keywords are Werner Hoffmann and/or Höffi.

FFA P-16 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

It is not because of his rank, it is because of his work. He was the co-founder of the Hornet Solo Display Team and he was one of the two first Hornet Solo Diplay Team Pilots. He was Pilot by the Patrouille Suisse, Wing Commander of the Fliegerstaffel 11 (Fighter Squadron 11) Tigers. He was Commander of the PC-7 Team in his time of commander the PC-7 Team was awarded at the Royal International Tattoo with the «King Hussein Memorial Sword»[1]. Under his command the PC-7 Team performed on its 25th Birthday theyr first air show with smoke generators on the roll -out of the first Pilatus PC-24[2]. He is part time working as Chief Air Defens (CAD) he was Chief Air Operations Center (AOC))[3] of the Swiss Air Force. He is part of the Movie Flying Diamond [4] His work is covered in a few books: Swissness 50 years Patrouille Suisse & 25 years PC-7 TEAM ISBN: 978-3-906562-43-8 Aridio Pellanda: Ueberwachungsgeschwader 30 Jahre Patrouille Suisse Max Huber, Kerzers ISBN: 3906401219 "PC-7 Team Backstage" ISBN: 978-3-906055-07-7 Under his leadership, the PC-7 team made a joint demonstration with the Patrouille Suisse at the Air14 where he was responsible for the demonstration of the two teams, who performed a display with 15 Aircraft (9 PC-7 and 6 F-5). On the Event Morgarten in 2015 the PC-7 Team performed under his command as first Air Display Team a public show synchronous to a live playing orchester [5]. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Info: There are more Werner Hoffmann Pilots on eng. Wikipedia. Searching for Werner Hoffmann (pilot born 1966) is not very effective. Better Keywords are Werner Hoffmann and/or Höffi. FFA P-16 (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Blick:Königliche Auszeichnung am «Air Tattoo» PC-7-Team ist Weltklasse en:Royal award at the air tattoo, pc-7 team is world class
  2. ^ PC-24 roll out with PC-7 Team
  3. ^ in command of the AOC. Verkehrshaus Magazin 20 Page 7
  4. ^ PC-7 Team Movie Flying Diamond
  5. ^ PC-7 Team training Show Display synchronous with Live Orchester
  • Delete Just a man with a job and - as usual, sorry - inflated importance. The Banner talk 12:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defintiv not usual and "Just a man with a job" if someone was part of 3 National Air Display Teams and the co-founder of one of this teams (Hornet Display Team, Patrouille Suisse PC-7 Team. Also "Just a man with a job and - as usual" but he is covered in minimum 3 Books :Swissness 50 years Patrouille Suisse & 25 years PC-7 TEAM ISBN 978-3-906562-43-8 Aridio Pellanda: Ueberwachungsgeschwader 30 Jahre Patrouille Suisse Max Huber, Kerzers ISBN 3906401219 "PC-7 Team Backstage" ISBN 978-3-906055-07-7 FFA P-16 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Try at least to have your citations correct "(...) and - as usual, sorry - inflated importance." The Banner talk 16:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How much coverage is there in these books? Is there more about him than there is about Daniel Hösli or other team pilots? My father was mentioned in a book, my mother's second husband was also mentioned in a book and I have been in a report of a magazine-style television program. If it is only a sentence or two, it is not significant coverage. As usual the article creator has failed to properly cite the sources he has used, so it is impossible to judge how much there is about the subject in these books. It would need to be a lot more than the online sources, because they all have one or more problems with respect to notability, depth of coverage and of being independent of the subject (for example, I do not think a promotional video released by the Swiss Air Force represents "significant coverage in independent sources" - it is not independent and the coverage of him is not significant either). At the moment, pending better refs in the article (if they exist), my !vote is to delete due to a lack of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was also once in a reportage in the Swiss National TV, had an article in a regional Newspaper and a 4 A4 page report in a swiss aviatic Journal. clear that this is not important enough to have an Wikipedia article about me. But here by Werner Hoffmann it is more, there are a few Articels about him in Cockpit, skynews.ch unfortunately the Air force Page about him as F/A-18 Solo Display Pilot and the Interview on Tele Züri with him is unfortunately no more on the internet and I tried to find the Documentation about him as Chief Air Operations Center from the swiss National TV but without success. 30 Jahre Patrouille Suisse has total 127 pages 7 pages with Werner Hoffmann. In Swissness 50 years Patrouille Suisse & 25 years PC-7 TEAM he is equal to Dani Hösli, In PC-7 Team Backstage is more weight about him than the others (25 years PC-7 Tem and he was 5 years commander of it). A book don't has to be only about him that he is relevant. This one is from Blick one of the two biggest online news portals in Switzerland [1]FFA P-16 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you say he's notable, you wrote the article; but you have a habit of creating articles out of 'smoke and mirrors' of trivial mentions and as usual with your work on Wikipedia, you haven't bothered to reference this article properly (which you know how to do, because you have been told and shown many times), so it is impossible to judge how much coverage there is. If the books say stuff like "the team, commanded by Hoffmann, did a display at Payern" on seven different pages out of 127, that is not 'significant coverage'; that is the level of coverage my father and my mother's second husband received in books. YSSYguy (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course you say he's notable, you wrote the article" yes now you are showing your true reason, it is not about notability its only because the article is from me. It's irrelevant what is written about your father and your mother's second husband. Yes 7 Pages out of 127 is not much. But we have still the other 2 books Swissness 50 years Patrouille Suisse & 25 years PC-7 TEAM and PC-7 Team Backstage and I have given the ISBN (so it is NOT impossible to judge how much coverage there) is also he is covered in a few aviatic journals. And took part in the Movie Patrouille Suisse Balett der Jagdbomber[2] this is enough coverage to see that he is notable. Never ending demands of proof and ignoring the books, journals etc.......FFA P-16 (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Interview with Colonel Werner Hoffmann | Commander of the PC-7 TEAM (2010 - 2015)
  2. ^ Werner Hoffmann in a Patrouille Suisse Movie
...there we go - another deletion discussion about an article you created in which you play the victim, claiming that I and other people are persecuting you. If I am victimising you, why did I not argue for deletion at the recent deletion discussion for the Air14 article? Why, at the recent Sockpuppet investigation about you, did I state that you were not the Sockmaster? YSSYguy (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even a man on a mission should be able to distinguish - not here. This user absolutely needs help to see beyond his own (quite often prooven to be narrow) horizon as demonstrated by YSSYguy's answer or as needed in an article:[10]. He is not able to adapt his behaviour to the rules of Wikipedia. (He is even more trying to proove that the rules are wrong.) He now dumps his articles that were deleted in the german wiki into enwiki. It is a correct observation that the name Hoffmann and the parallel Nils Hämmerli and Daniel Hösli are/were mentioned in swiss media and even more, that this is always about their teams, which means because of their funcion (even very few PR of the air force), never because of their personal achievements.--2A02:1206:45A8:BC00:C7B:5F9D:418:378A (talk) 05:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Is there another example of a founder of a military aerobatic team rating a Wikipedia article just because of that? I know that there are founders or commanders who have gone on to other notable military jobs, but not of any who rate an article just because of it. --Lineagegeek (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no notability established. Does not qualify under WP:SOLDIER or GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - has done a good job worked his way up the ranks and probably a good pilot up but I cant see anything particularly noteworthy that passes the bar for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 22:32, 4 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 per A7. (non-admin closure) Samario: Talk page 12:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cris Kester[edit]

Cris Kester (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article appears to be an autobiography/self promotion (see creator's page) and the only two sources are illegitimate (YouTube video and Facebook link respectively). There is also a good chance he fails to meet WP:GNG GammaRadiator (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I tried looking for sources, but I just can't find anything useful and the best I found were things like this and this. I'm aware that there's trouble finding Nigerian sources for articles in general, but there's just an overall lack of chatter that makes me think that there may not be anything out there to find - especially as the YT video for his latest song has been out since February 10th and only has about 700 views, which doesn't match the hype in the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedied per WP:A7. This is an unsourced highly promotional BLP and probable autobiography. It doesn't need to be on AfD. Bishonen | talk 17:24, 4 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 and redirect to GMA Network (company). Nothing sourced to merge and history has copyvio issues, so deleting before redirect. czar 02:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Worldwide[edit]

GMA Worldwide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article wholly supported by primary references. Searches turned up virtually nothing except for press releases and brief mentions. Should be a redirect to GMA Network, the parent company. Also has the flavor of WP:CORPSPAM. Onel5969 TT me 01:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969 Hi Im Kazaro, GMA Network and GMA Worldwide is a separate company. GMA Network is an television channel in the Philippines, and this might not considering being nominated for deletion since the article I have created shows a reference or reliable sources. And This apply to all articles I have seen.Kazaro (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Articles require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.
So that means, several references - and not their own website.
Also, an article must be neutral. This says, clients and partners can expect a consistent stream of well-crafted programs - which is pure spam. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA Network: wholly promotional and not independently notable. --Slashme (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to GMA Network. Seems to be just the network's licensing arm. News about GWI seems to be focused on either the celebration of its 20th anniversary and them securing rights to air certain shows at their parent network. --Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the parent company: GMA Network (company)#Television. --Bluemask (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Slashme, This could be the good resource about the company, [1] and also this company could be found on Bloomberg [2] where it say's it's a private company. Kazaro (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.asiatvforum.com/en/Exhibitors/1100430/GMA-Worldwide-Inc
  2. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=51811958
Comment - the first is simply a press release on an industry site, while the second is just a business listing. Onel5969 TT me 11:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Voceditenore - I was at work when I looked into this article, where I can't access my copyvio program. Meant to do that, and quite honestly slipped my mind. Onel5969 TT me 13:26, 4 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 New atheism. czar 02:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical atheism[edit]

Evangelical atheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This should be deleted because it's poorly sourced, not notable, outdated, and doesn't contribute anything not available in other articles. The originator, mpleahy, is seemingly inactive and hasn't responded to a deletion proposal on their talk page.

Evangelism has two meanings. Primarily, it means preaching the Christian gospel to convert others into Christianity, as evidenced by the article evangelism. Atheism clearly is not this.

Less commonly, evangelism can mean "zealous in advocating something" which is how it is being used here. A more accurate title for this article would be "Zealous atheism".

One can be zealous and "outspoken" about advocating atheism, but one can be zealous and outspoken about advocating many things; evangelical atheism does not merit an article any more than evangelical capitalism or evangelical vegetarianism would.

The article is also poorly sourced. Only two sources actually discuss the term, and one of them does so dismissively. That leaves us with only a dead link to an obscure 23 year old article, where Dan Barker merely uses the word evangelism as a synonym for being a more impassioned advocate. There are no reliable and notable sources for this article because "evangelical atheism" as a specific term is not notable. Ofus (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentThis is pretty much wrong. There are not "only 2 articles that discuss the phrase." Where the hell do you get that idea? The point of the metaphor is not that they are passionate (Nietzsche was a passionate atheist, but he was not an evangelical) but that they exhibit many of the same distasteful characteristics of evangelical Christians, and other evangelical religions, only in a mirrored form. The term has much wider currency than you appear to realize, and is quite analytically useful. Perhaps the article at present isn't good, but that is a reason to improve, not delete. Many sources could easily be found. Supervoter (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Possible neologism. DrStrauss talk 09:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentEverything is a neologism at some time or another; but if you are implying the author of the article invented this phrase, you are assuredly wrong. As below, there is a very clear, useful, and distinctive meaning to this phrase: atheists who rabidly aim to convince the faith to abandon religion, with books like "God is not Good", "The God Delusion", "Breaking the Spell". Distinctively, such atheists often have an embarrassingly unsophisticated crass understanding of the role of religion in intellectual history; the term is thus generally used derisively by more serious, Nietzschean atheists such as John Gray. Here is a good article, explaining the evangelical atheists and their motives, for example: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/03/what-scares-the-new-atheists
  • Keep I don't think the nominator knows what he's talking about. This is a very commonly used phrase in academic circles, and it has a very specific meaning: atheists who want to "convert" or convince others over to Atheism. Very specifically, it usually refers to the strident brand of atheism that doesn't actually engage in an intellectually serious way with religion generally, and with Christianity in particular. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Sam Harris, and so on. There is no good reason not to have a page on this topic, which is notable and has received a great deal of coverage. Supervoter (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is The SUPERVOTER, his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions. Thanks for your understanding. Please see my userpage if you have questions.)[reply]
  • Comment User:Mpleahy is unlikely to respond. Based on his/her edit history, Mpleahy's last edit took place on 20 April, 2008. He/she is inactive for 9 years. Dimadick (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with some reluctance) as a term that has gained considerable currency. Leaving aside self-published and crudely abusive references, we can find essays focussing on "evangelical atheists" in Huffington Post and The Guardian, a mention in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism, and among many discussions in published books the term is used in chapter or section headings here and here. So there seems plenty of scope to add to the article and keep it tightly linked to published commentary about "evangelical atheism": Noyster (talk), 19:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)LadyofShalott 04:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
  • Merge to New atheism - the term is certainly in wide use, and it describes a notable pattern of behaviour. The sources listed by Noyster are I think decisive here: for instance, Louise Antony's 2007 book uses it as an index term and devotes 5 pages to the topic (and the date of the book shows the term is not a brief neologism: it is used in many more recent books also). There is thus substantial coverage, not just brief mentions. Also persuasive is the fact that the books are of very different types, from encyclopedic or scholarly to popular and even humorous, and address issues from theology to politics and education. That doesn't mean we need a whole new article, however; a merge to the article on New atheism would seem the right answer as it focuses on Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins and Dennett's variety of atheism already, and covers all of the ground of this article and more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now aware of the New Atheism article I'll go with merge to this, recommending that the use of the term "evangelical atheism" should be added to it with refs as above: Noyster (talk), 10:40, 7 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. czar 02:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midtown Shopping mall[edit]

Midtown Shopping mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've just declined a G11 speedy deletion nomination on the grounds that the article isn't blatantly promotional. Listing here for further review. It's a shopping center in Turkey, quick Google search doesn't confirm notability but maybe just not in English? – Juliancolton | Talk 14:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unsourced. And no corresponding Turkish article. LibStar (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, those aren't really the most persuasive arguments for deletion. There's no requirement for interwiki links, and if we deleted all unsourced articles, the servers would be a lot lighter. Did you attempt to look for sources even if they aren't in the article? While I agree deletion is probably the inevitable outcome here, I'd like to make sure it's the right one. – Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it could have been prodded even you have said you can't find decent coverage . LibStar (talk) 00:28, 3 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. (non-admin closure) — Yash talk stalk 16:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Sullivan (lawyer)[edit]

Barry Sullivan (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to mainly consist of the subject's professional bio and CV/resume. Subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and fails both WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC. Brycehughes (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note that the current version of the article, which seems to have been in place since 2009, appears to be very close paraphrasing from this version of his Jenner & Block profile. The first couple of versions of the entry seemed fine copyright-wise, if we want to keep and stubify. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:NACADEMIC - Dean of the School of Law at Washington and Lee University, Vice President Washington and Lee University, Professor of Law at Loyola University Chicago and holder of the Cooney & Conway Chair in Advocacy. Article needs major cleanup though. I'll try to take a stab at that in the next few days and add in line citations. I added a source in lead to verify academic positions. CBS527Talk 13:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added in-line sources and did some clean-up to the article. As User:EricEnfermero stated above, about 90 percent of the article was cut and pasted from his Jenner & Block profile. So I had to pretty much rewrite the article. CBS527Talk 20:52, 8 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 02:16, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warriors[edit]

World of Warriors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Promotional material. Highly questionable re notability. Jack | talk page 20:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is "significant coverage" of this subject in reliable sources which means it passes WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search brought up [1], [2],[3] and [4] which makes World of Warriors clearly pass the WP:GNG. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imore.com/world-warriors-top-10-tips-hints-and-cheats-you-need-know
  2. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/30/moshi-monsters-creators-launch-mobile-game-world-of-warriors
  3. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/10862561/Beyond-Moshi-Monsters-Mind-Candy-unveils-World-of-Warriors.html
  4. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyrobertson/2014/10/15/mind-candys-world-of-warriors-targets-role-play-fans/#398e7753debd
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1 and 4 are not reliable. However, in addition to refs 2 and 3 above, there are a number at the WP:VG/RS search[11], so this is probably a Keep on the notability front. I would suggest that promotion can be re written. --Izno (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as passing WP:GNG with multiple independent reliable in-depth sources. Being promotional means we have to rewrite it, not necessarily delete it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:47, 5 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CandyBar[edit]

CandyBar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hardly notable, app was discontinued, and the article does not cite any sources whatsoever. And it also doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. Kamran Mackey (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added two new sources: Book with one page about this application and tutorial in Mac Life magazine (again 1 page). My search shows there may be more sources of this kind in Mac related media (eg. at least few articles/news in MacAddict, predecessor of Mac Life). Pavlor (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more refrences (MacAddict and heise.de). Pavlor (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for products and services. That, and the article has almost no information whatsoever. Kamran Mackey (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here I can´t agree. As of stub state of the article, there is still space for expansion. The very existence of CandyBar documents peculiarities of the Mac OS (macOS?), namely hard to change of some aspects of the visual settings ("themes"). After reading Mac related magazines I´m convinced CandyBar was The Application for change of default icons back in its time. At least in my point of view this is serious claim of notability. Pavlor (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, as long as it gets extended with more information, I guess the article can remain. Kamran Mackey (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J947 00:44, 2 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. I agree with Laurdecl that people are likely to be looking for a list, and a redirect to "media bias" is not quite suitable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative news outlets[edit]

Conservative news outlets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

case of WP:OR DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Is this article a fucking joke? Not only is it badly written and entirely unsourced (what could the sources for this even be, one wonders) it's also stupid. Supervoter (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC) (Note: since this user is The SUPERVOTER, his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions. Thanks for your understanding. Please see my userpage if you have questions.)[reply]

  • Note: This user's actions are being discussed here. J947 05:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Media bias. Potentially notable topic, but awful definitions and no sourcing. Just a sample: "Where the reporting of information is based upon what is heard or seen, then the news is unbiased". Even eyewitness memory does not meet this standard of objectivity and several limitations have been recognized. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay-like WP:OR. I disagree with redirecting, as the meaning is quite distinct from the suggested target (people would probably be looking for a list). Laurdecl talk 03:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  I agree with Laurdecl.  Even if redirected, though, it must be deleted first.  And this is without prejudice to a new article here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:43, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_March_2&oldid=1142618114"