Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 March	28 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanivarapupeta road[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate the notability of Sanivarapupeta road. One of its two sources is about a building and mentions Sanivarapupeta road only once. The other source does not mention. Sanivarapupeta road. To be notable, the road should be "the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent ..." Eddie Blick (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: May not comply with notability. It must have several secondary sources, especially known to outside of the particular city. For example: Grand Trunk Road.--Vin09 (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, most city roads don't deserve an article unless something especially significant relates to it. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Roads are rarely notable and this isn't one of them. SL93 (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with nom. WP:MILL road lacking notability or significance. MB 03:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2080 (software concept)[edit]

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

No reliable sources showed up in my searches. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, cannot find any evidence that this is notable. SJK (talk) 06:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently a web site http://www.2080.be was created circa 2008 which an old version of the article cited. No evidence anything else ever happened regarding this concept! W Nowicki (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indeed seems non notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dakich[edit]

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

Reasons for contesting the WP:PROD do not seeem satisfactory reasons to support notability. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Really not a player of note. He did get a small amount of press for his viral scholarship video, but that's a single-event and frankly if we're going to have Wikipedia articles for every person who stars in a viral video that makes the rounds for a few days then we ought to just get rid of notability criteria. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:INHERITED, and WP:SINGLEEVENT Rikster2 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the notability criteria for either basketball players or college atheletes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails GNG and SINGLEEVENT. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non-notable basketball playe.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:49, 2 April 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samaira Sandhu[edit]

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

The subject of this promotional biography does not meet the "significant coverage" criteria as described in WP:BIO. Only acting role is in a movie that was released two days ago. References are brief puff pieces. Deli nk (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one film role is not enough to make an actress notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't judge her notability only from a film, She is a notable writer and model apart from an actress, I think all these points are enough to keep this article live on Wikipedia. You must check deeply the references before put your thoughts.Wikibaji (talk) 05:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How can you "check deeply the references" when they are so shallow? Deli nk (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check all the four resources available on article are from trust-able websites, books or magazines. Never demoralize of anyone's work on Wikipedia. Think before adding any deletion tag on any article.Wikibaji (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that I didn't think before adding the deletion tag is nonsense (did you even think before writing that?). I read the article, tried to find additional references, and only then, once it was clear that this article does not meet notability criteria, did I nominate it for deletion. Deli nk (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:UPANDCOMING. Her only notable act is acting in a just-released film. The whole point of discussions here is to challenge notability; demoralization is in the eye of the fan. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for actors. Bearian (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikibaji, the article creator, has directed me here from my talk page. Unfortunately, after looking at the sources, I'll say this article needs to be deleted. Maybe later, Samaira will qualify for an article, but not yet. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:51, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think Mrs. East Asia Erath and Mrs. Erath Photogenic can be consider for notability.Wikibaji (talk) 09:46, 30 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 2006 in video gaming. Bishonen | talk 04:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006 in video gaming[edit]

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

I'm not even sure how it would be possible to show this was notable. Just a blog entry, surely.. WP:NOTBLOG JMWt (talk) 20:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into 2006 in video gaming. South Nashua (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessarily narrow time period to discuss for the topic. Reliable sources do not discuss the industry by month and it doesn't look like this particular month was given any lasting attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to notable; nothing more than a fork. We already have a 2016 list. Bearian (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though as noted, there might be a few useful things to make sure are in the 2006 in video gaming article, and if so , this should be merged there. --MASEM (t) 18:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessarily specific in scope and redundant to the respective year article. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - if anything isn't already in the 2006 article, it can be moved there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 4 April 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 #1 - Bluerasberry is only asking for the contents of this article to be merged not deleted and no one else has put forward a deletion reason. Merge discussions should take place on one of the article talk pages of the involved articles ~ GB fan 10:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Salted bomb[edit]

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

I could be mistaken about this nomination but I think this concept is another name for "dirty bomb". I see two claims here which suggest a distinction from "dirty bomb" - perhaps the manufacturing process includes some Salt (chemistry) ingredient that merits the name, and perhaps the bomb refers to "salting the earth". I do not see any sources cited about the chemistry of salting, so I think that is dubious. The "salting the earth" part might be correct, but a dirty bomb does that also, so that makes me think these are the same concept.

There are not many sources cited here, and not all of them talk about "salted bombs". Some sources do, and I agree that "salted bomb" is a term for describing something. I only disagree that it is a distinct concept from dirty bomb. The base concept is a bomb which is designed both to explode, and also to poison a region for years or centuries or longer with radioactive contamination.

I think all of the content here should be merged to dirty bomb but I thought that I would seek comments from others. Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The contents of the two articles make it clear that they are distinct types of weapons. A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive device in which some type of radioactive material is added. A salted bomb is a nuclear weapon that has been designed to produce extra radioactive fallout. Even though there is some overlap in the intended consequences of using these two different types of weapons, I think they are clearly distinct enough to warrant two separate articles. Edgeweyes (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edgeweyes Do you have any comment on whether the sources cited make a distinction? I confirm that the contents of the Wikipedia articles assert a distinction. I fail to identify cited sources which distinguish the two concepts, and am wondering if this is a second name for the same concept despite the assertion in Wikipedia. Ideally, I would like to see a source mentioning both concepts and distinguishing them, if in fact they are different concepts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fact that the references describe one as a nuclear weapon (e.g. nuclearweaponarchive.org ref) and the other as a conventional explosive (nrc.gov ref) is more than sufficient distinction to indicate that one is not a second name for the other. Edgeweyes (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These are two speculative weapon concepts that are substantially different both by operating principle (nuclear explosion vs conventional explosion or even a crop duster) and impact (possible end of human civilization vs hundreds of casualties). The fact that they stand so far apart makes it rather hard to find a source that mentions both. Typically, the "dirty bomb" concept is associated with terrorism (example) while the "salted bomb" seems to be far out of reach for any terrorist organization and is only relevant at the state level (example). Probably this clear distinction in a given context contributed to the naming confusion in some sources where either type of weapon can be called "dirty" or "salted". This may raise a question whether these articles are named correctly in Wikipedia, but so far it seems that they're in agreement with most of the sources. Regardless or article names though, I don't see any reasons to merge them since concepts behind them are clearly different. Salmin (talk) 05:52, 28 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 as keep. This AfD was out of process given that the nominator did not provide grounds for deleting the articles, and actually advocated keeping them all. The number of articles listed was also excessive: it would be difficult for editors to individually assess the notability of each shopping centre as part of this nomination, or for a closing admin to figure out what the consensus for each centre is. Discussions concerning the notability of these shopping centres can be conducted without going to AfD.. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Innaloo[edit]

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

This is an advisory batch nomination. I personally don't think any of these should be deleted, but I think I'm in the minority, based on the results at Westfield Mount Druitt -- 60,088 m², 240 stores, converted to a redirect December 2012 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt, reiterated 2017 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Mount Druitt (2nd nomination), and Westfield Penrith -- 91,701 m², 338 stores, converted to redirect December 2012‎ per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Penrith.

So rather than picking at these one by one at random let's see if we can come up with some kind of rational decision on the class as a whole -- delete/merge/redirect 'em all, keep 'em all, or delete some and keep others (but by some non-random criteria).

Articles under consideration, chosen because they are listed in the template {{Westfield Australia}} (and also in List of Westfield shopping centres in Australia), in ascending order of area:

Westfield Innaloo -- 47,030 m², 171 stores
Westfield Geelong -- 52,000 m², 187 stores
Westfield Plenty Valley -- 53,845 m², 183 stores
Westfield Airport West -- 54,777 m², 162 stores see note below
(Westfield Mount Druitt at 60,088 m², 240 stores would fit here)
Westfield Hurstville -- 61,928 m², 259 stores
Westfield Woden -- 62,000 m², 260 stores
Westfield Helensvale -- [don't know] m², 239 stores
Westfield Burwood -- 63,614 m², 240 stores
Westfield Kotara -- 68,660 m2, 256 stores
Westfield West Lakes -- 71,000 m², 260 stores
Westfield North Lakes -- [don't know] m², 274 stores
Westfield Whitford City -- 76,463 m², 299 stores
Westfield Chatswood -- 80,852 m², 282 stores
Westfield Tuggerah -- 82,274 m², 267 stores
Westfield Carousel -- 82,464 m², 293 stores
Westfield Liverpool -- 83,365 m2, 340 stores
Westfield Eastgardens -- 84,627 m², 303 stores
(Westfield Penrith, at 91,701 m², 338 stores would fit here)
Westfield Belconnen -- 94,718 m², 287 stores
Westfield Tea Tree Plaza -- 95,332 m², 245 stores
Westfield Hornsby -- 99,830 m², 335 stores
Westfield Doncaster -- 120,000 m², 400 stores
Westfield Bondi Junction -- 126,895 m2, 499 stores
Westfield Miranda -- 127,000 m², 396 stores
Westfield Southland -- 129,180 m², 400 stores
Westfield Warringah Mall -- 132,066 m², 385 stores
Westfield Carindale -- 136,373 m², 443 stores
Westfield Marion -- 136,778 m², 341 stores
Westfield Parramatta -- 137,407 m², 498 stores
Westfield Knox -- 141,934 m², 409 stores
Westfield Garden City -- 142,835 m², 402 stores
Westfield Chermside -- 150,733 m², 400 stores
Westfield Sydney -- 167,911 m², 361 stores
Westfield Fountain Gate -- 177,755 m², 464 stores

-- Herostratus (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(I just noted when I made this that per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Innaloo, Westfield Innaloo (the smallest mall on this list) was kept in 2006. So if some are being redirected and some kept according to who's paying attention at the moment, which seems possible, all the more reason to sort this out and get this put to bed once and for here.) Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(P.P.S: By coincidence Westfield Airport West is concurrently being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westfield Airport West.)

Keep all as nom. It's not 1917 anymore, so a lot of the life of the people is tied in with malls, for good or ill, rather than their town centers anymore. The economic life especially, but also the personal and cultural life. They are equivalent to towns (and we keep articles for even the smallest towns). During the day they are inhabited by thousands. It's true that people don't sleep there at night, but "people sleeping there" is actually one of the least important and interesting things about a town. And at these malls occur do most of the other, interesting and important, activities that people do in towns -- shop, work, flirt, eat, hang out, etc.

Even the smallest of these, Westfield Innaloo, has stores equivalent to the center of a large town and is inhabited every day by thousands of people. It's been in use by Perthians for half a century and has a 375-seat restaurant (called a "food court"). The article has ten refs and IMO probably meets WP:GNG, is 6,211 bytes with 4 images, and is a perfectly fine article, not promotional poorly written or anything. Since it's a perfectly fine article why throw it away. That is not how we grow as a reference work. And that's the smallest one. (Westfield Geelong, the next smallest, has 14 refs and and a fine 13,397-byte article which among much else describes the history of its site (smack center of the city of Geelong) from the 1850s.)

(Granted though that a number of the articles aren't as good or as well ref'd and don't meet GNG which is not to necessarily say the couldn't, although I don't know; but at any rate all are ref'd to non-GNG-eligible sources (e.g. the company itself) sufficient to make a decent short article.)

Another reason to keep all is that "delete all" (or "redirect all" or "merge all") doesn't seem in the cards: (Westfield Fountain Gate is the second largest mall in Australia, so "delete/redirect/merge all" would essentially imply largely clearing out Category:Shopping centres in Australia, and indeed Category:Shopping malls itself... which is many thousands of articles, and I don't think we want do that (others may disagree). But if you don't want to delete all, where do you draw the line? 60,000 m²? 80,000 m²? 100,000 m² or higher (as the fate of Westfield Penrith seems to imply)? 20 years of existence? 5 large anchor stores? Currently ref'd to meet GNG? 3,000-byte+ article? Drawing some line like that is defensible I suppose, but seems quite arbitrary. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I don't think a batch nomination is appropriate here. These shopping centres need to be nominated individually if it's felt they should be deleted, as they all essentially have different levels of, and reasons for, notability. The number of stores and area is really irrelevant to notability. A shopping centre could have one store and still be notable. Westfield Kotara, for example, was the first shopping centre outside the Newcastle CBD when it was opened as Kotara Fair in 1965 with 27 stores, and drove a lot of development in the area, and still does. This is not explained in the article because 50-year-old sources are hard to come by. Westfield Airport West really shouldn't be included, as it's already under discussion at another AfD. That said, I am convinced by Herostratus' reasoning for a keep vote. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all I have one comment. I did a uni project about a Westfield shopping centre in 2013 and was able to find a reasonable amount of historical sources including an official 188 page history published in 2010. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Totally inappropriate batch nomination: the only thing these have in common is that they're owned by the same company, which has absolutely nothing to do with their notability (and Westfield tend to buy more notable shopping centres, not less). The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Bizarre nomination as each shopping mall article is notable because of independent coverage, not because they are associated with the Westfield Brand. Individual articles that do not appear to meet the notability requirements can be nominated individually. This batch nomination makes no sense at all. Ajf773 (talk) 21:47, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Blair[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nominating for an IP 2804:7F4:FB80:FB82:7C16:CAAB:4C6B:A (talk · contribs), who left the following rationale on my talk page: "non-notable professional wrestler who hasn't competed in a major promotion (TNA, ROH, AAA, NJPW, Only developmental territory by WWE etc. etc.) and shows no evidence of passing WP:GNG. Only source Cagematch bio." Nikki♥311 17:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 17:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON Dannys-777 (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a non-notable wrestler.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:52, 2 April 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 salt Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Bryson[edit]

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

This article has been recreated 5 times, in each case following prods and csd-A7 based deletions because the article lacks any apparent notability by Wikipedia standards. I would ask then that this article, if re-deleted, be also salted so as to avoid the constant recreation cycle. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's put an end to this incessant self promotion. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt The logs tell the story. L3X1 (distant write) 19:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it is already salted. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Peacock (talk) 21:13, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:54, 2 April 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. Primefac (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Cory[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable singer. Adam9007 (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This artist has been considered notable according to wikipedia's policy on musicians and groups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archiveworld (talk • contribs) 03:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blackguard 19:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ^[1] doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Stern, Bradley (January 3, 2012). "Paradiso Lost: Chelsea Korka Launches Solo Career". MuuMuse. Retrieved April 3, 2017.

Delete As per CAPTAIN RAJU just does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Fails to meet GNG with no significant coverage in WP:RS. Antonioatrylia (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I inadvertently pasted a reference to the last article here while typing out mm discussion/!vote . Thank you CAPTAIN RAJU for the fix. My intention now would be to strikethrough the reference since it refers to a different article. May I impose on you CAPT RAJU at my request. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thanks. Antonioatrylia (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify. Sent to draft space for User:Alex at FCPEuro to work on. Since a version already existed at Draft:FCP Euro, I have named this draft Draft:FCP Euro/alt. The creator is invited to merge the versions. Bishonen | talk 03:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FCP Euro[edit]

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

Non-notable company, does not meet WP:COMPANY. Purely WP:SOAPBOX and uses only WP:PRIMARY sources and company-penned press releases for sources. Edited by a company employee and an outside party assisting them. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Changing my initial vote to draft, see below. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Kleuske (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is a company brochure, not an encyclopedia article. - Bri (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft As an editor to this page, I'd like to request this page not be deleted. I have already created the draft page, but before this one meets its fate, I have several lawsuit cases in CT that I could add to the article. I know that is nothing of significance, but it is much better than the brochure-like content already on the page. The lawsuits have to do with BMW and VOLVO specifically which are two major automotive companies. What are your thoughts everyone? Also, we have several publications completed about us in Roundel by BMW Car Club of America but none of those are on the web. They are just paper publications.Alex at FCPEuro (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Printed sources are valid as well if they're considered reliable. Check the citation templates {{cite magazine}} and {{cite news}} for some of the parameters you can supply.

To the other commenters - based on my correspondence with this individual, I'm changing my initial deletion nomination to Draft. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - no harm in moving this to draft space. I would suggest to the editor to avail themselves of the Articles for Creation process. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:59, 4 April 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. Redirects may be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Consort Road stadium[edit]

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

Article about a planned stadium that never materialised. Deserves brief coverage at Gateshead F.C.#Stadium (where it is already mentioned), but I can't see justification for an article on it. Number 5 7 15:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable stadium that never happened. SL93 (talk) 21:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - would fail WP:GEOFEAT even if it had gone ahead. Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 20:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gateshead F.C.#Stadium, where, as nom states, it is briefly mentioned. Votes to delete rather than redirect should reconsider in light of WP:ATD. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- Stadiums at National League level are notable. Many stadiums below National League level are notable. Victoria Stadium (Northwich) is notable despite being 2-3 levels below the National League and not existing any more.
- Proposed stadiums are notable. Brentford Community Stadium is notable though it hasn't been approved or designed yet. New Era Field II is notable though they don't even know where they might hypothetically build it.
- Cancelled stadiums are notable. New Queens Park is notable although QPR have now given up on the Old Oak site. Stanley Park Stadium has a longer article than most existing stadiums.
- The notability guidelines are unclear about planned buildings, but it seems nonsensical to me that the notability of a building hinges on a decision to build it or not build it. Nothing about the stadium changed on the day it was cancelled. It was still a stadium, sited and designed, for the use of Gateshead FC, that didn't exist. If stadiums become non-notable at the moment they get cancelled, you could have a bizarre Schroedinger's Cat situation where the directors of the club know that the building is non-notable but the Wikipedia-editing public think that it is. Chi Sigma (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that "Stadiums at National League level are notable", but that's not relevant here because this stadium never existed. I'm also not sure why you bring up the Victoria Stadium, as it hosted National League football for three seasons. The rest of the argument seems to be largely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ignoring the fact that those stadiums are for clubs at a far higher level than Gateshead (I'd expect New Queens Park to be deleted if it never happens tbh). Number 5 7 09:24, 3 April 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 asking @Calamondin12: whether the hoax nature is plausible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benyow George Bektas[edit]

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

Possible hoax. If he did in fact play for the Armenia national football team, he would be notable, but there is no evidence that he did, or indeed that he exists. None of the references check out, and I can't find anything else online. St Anselm (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax unless someone can present sources that indicate he is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Looks pretty hoaxy to me as well. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as hoax. If he really came through the Real Madrid academy and had been capped for Armenia then we'd know about him. Spiderone 19:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, likely hoax. Giant Snowman 08:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable football player.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Wu[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NMODEL (although I may be missing some Korean or Taiwanese reliable sources). Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. I searched under her name in Chinese and [[Pinyin] (Wu Fengnu) also. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even more important than whether she meets GNG or not (which I can't properly evaluate, due to not being able to read the language of what comes up on Google to determine its reliability or lack thereof), this is written as such a blatantly advertorial pile of fluff that the blow it up and start over principle would apply even if she is notable enough. And furthermore, this article was "referenced" almost entirely to social networking content, rather than real reliable source coverage, until I poleaxed the unacceptable references just now — and even the one reference I didn't strip is still a user-generated discussion forum, not a media outlet. Bearcat (talk) 05:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NMODEL. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:01, 3 April 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 per G4. I looked at the previously created article, and it was in fact better developed than the current version. The creator is a sock as are the new accounts below. It's clear to me that many of the accounts involved in the repeated recreation of this article years ago were also socks, but I can't check because they are Stale. That's just some side information and is largely irrelevant to the delete result. Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas kuzhinapurath[edit]

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

As per a previous discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Kuzhinapurath) a similar article created by the same contributor got deleted after discussion. However the creator says that at the time of the earlier discussion, there weren't enough notable sources, thus claiming that the article now has proper notable sources. Omkar1234talk 15:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe article should not be deleted. The article is well written on verifiable sources. (SMCC2017 (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete promotional autobiography. Amazon refs seem more intended to drive book sales than to provide reliable sources. Cabayi (talk) 16:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What about the article in Encyclopedia of South Indian Literature by Dr. Madhubala Sinha. (Prabha Sekhar (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article in the other encyclopedia, by itself, is conclusive as to the notability question. I would be open to a WP:TNT deletion if the article really were horrid, but one could always reduce this to a stub before starting over. Nyttend (talk) 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS, here in North America, the holdings for this encyclopedia are academic libraries; I expect that this encyclopedia is a trustworthy publication, not some autopublished vanity thing. Nyttend (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article that covers 3 pages of an encyclopedia of South Indian Literature really shows the notability of the subject. (Syam Kumar1959 (talk) 17:19, 27 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of Terror[edit]

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

Notability. If there was an article on the Witold Pilecki Center for Totalitarian Studies I'd argfue for a merge. But there ain't. As it stands this article risks becoming a POV fork. TheLongTone (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - this seems pretty significant, not OR and based in RS. I don't see that POV is much of an issue. I don't find English language sources, but there are Polish language ones that seem RS in the article. The database is based on depositions of Polish citizens who testified before the Main Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in Poland, which was taken over by the Institute of National Remembrance, so if a merge destination was desperately sought, that could be a possibility. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject isn't notable. None of the sources appear to be independent, including Polish government websites mentioning the project. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From state run Radio Poland: the institute was created by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage and "According to Poland's deputy minister of culture and national heritage, Magdalena Gawin, the idea is to overcome an information barrier and demonstrate to the Western European public the extent of genocide in occupied Poland on the basis of documents and eyewitness testimonies." New institution to document crimes of genocide against Poland. A state-created entity could be notable but I am having difficulty locating independent coverage. Note: this reference refers to the project as "accounts of terror" which may be useful as an alternate search term. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mainstream press coverage for example in [1]; more niche portal coverage at [2], and those are just from pl wiki article, I didn't search further, but that's already more than quite a few other archives (also, plus the English language source that the anon above cites). Clearly passes GNG. Also archives are usually separately notable from institutions that run them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Important verifiable historical resource regardless coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this needs to be re-organised and tagged appropriately but not AfD'd. In my opinion this has sufficent coverage to pass WP:GNG. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 17:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
kEEP -- This is a Polish subject and the missing article appears to exist in the Polish WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I'm going to side with Piotrus who I know to be a fair judge of notability of Poland-related topics. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted by DGG. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bauer[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson. Only references I can find are the cited non-notable award from an industry group and several press releases from his company. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion by another editor at the same time I submitted this AFD. I have no prejudice against speedy deletion, but I assumed that the award listed was at least questionable as a credible claim of significance. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nomination. Ther is clearly paid editing going on here, since article creator has just created another promotional article about a drone for the same company.TheLongTone (talk) 14:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 27 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 redirect to House of Glory. (essentially WP:CSD#A10) -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

House Of Glory[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks reliable sources. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Duplicate article for House of Glory. Dannys-777 (talk) 22:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplicate.LM2000 (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to House of Glory.--Eliken (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 08:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Berlow[edit]

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

Non-notable ecologist.TED lectures do not confer notability. Winged Blades^Godric 14:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Several good google news sources on him, including wired. Ted is notable, and highly viewed, as opposed to tedx. Possible also meets PROF he has quite a few hits in scholar and is cited, did not asseess as he also seems to hit GNG clearly.Icewhiz (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 11.000 cites on GS in a highly cited field passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- enough hits in Google Books directly discussing his research to convince me of notability: link. The promotional tone needs to be cleaned up, though. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OlOne[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Suspected WP:COI. Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Admins can see direct evidence of COI in deleted contributions from this editor on en.wp. DMacks (talk) 14:24, 27 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 moved to Draft:Talalima Mobley. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talalima Mobley[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the cites in the article are non-WP:RS (Twitter, blogs) or his own website (styleheirs.com). Moreover, it's an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Maybe WP:TOOSOON, but i'm not convinced. Kleuske (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Kleuske argument for Article Deletion - Talalima Mobley.

Thank you kindly for your input, I'm fairly new to this realm of editing on Wikipedia, I would like to request that this page to be placed in my user space so that I can continue to make better improvements to the article in order to save it from complete deletion. In my defence, yes the cites used are from twitter or blogs, specifically my own website at StyleHeirs.com - however, the cites are meant to show proof that where I have been and the efforts I've put into building my own portfolio are legitimate. It's difficult to make a name for myself in this industry and I don't have adequate management to support my endeavours in this line of work. Please, I invite you to aid me in correcting this article and ensure that I follow each proper guideline in order to keep this article alive. The best way to contact me is at my email talamobley[at]styleheirs[dot]com if you're willing to supply any guidance for my career and to resolve the errors in this article.

Inherit Love, I AM, Talalima Mobley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamobley (talk • contribs) 13:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing autobiographies, especially if notability is disputed, is still a bad idea, even if in userspace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost. Kleuske (talk) 13:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further research...

WP:SELFSOURCE States the following:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources.

These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Which I know the criteria's are met with each citation, as each source definitely reflects no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The provided SELFSOURCE mainly give narratives not claims to certain people or organizations that have commissioned Talalima Mobley, myself, to write these articles about their on-stage performance or collections on my own website at StyleHeirs.com. The sources are not based on the Wikipedia article Talalima Mobley yet is only provided to give more background to the assignments Talalima Mobley has carried out by request from publicists that are employed by major record companies and design houses. The provided cites have no claims about events not directly related to the article Talalima Mobley. Lastly, the citations aren't in any way self-serving nor an exceptional claim because each review published on StyleHeirs.com has one sole purpose, to provide online content regarding specific events hosted by each artists/people or organizations.

In the WP:SELFSOURCE definition, there isn't specific verbiage that clarifies that all or each criteria should be met in order to be deemed worthy for citiaion use in an article hosted on Wikipedia. If again, I have misread or misinterpreted the WP:SELFSOURCE definition please bring that to my attention and clarify my understanding. Much apprciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamobley (talk • contribs) 14:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. WP:SELFSOURCE is not at issue here, it is Wikipedia:Notability and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (people). ~Anachronist (talk) 17:53, 28 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 List of Magpakailanman episodes#2013. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Aroma[edit]

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

As per WP:SENSATION and WP:GNG. This person fails to satisfy notability. Her only claim to notability is being a participant of a sensationalist suicide incident. Mapagkailanman the drama biographical antology where the life of the subject has been featured has also featured the lives of several other private citizens. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the nominator. Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible to rewrite this as an article about the Magpakailanman episode itself? If not, merge to List of Magpakailanman episodes#2013. --Bluemask (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: I agree with this proposal, All relevant contents could be merged to the relevant episode in List of Magpakailanman episodes#2013. There are useful content regarding the Mapagkailanman episode even if the subject herself does not meet GNG.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Magpakailanman episodes#2013. Most of the content here will be condensed or removed in that process. bd2412 T 15:34, 2 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CarCraft Cyclone[edit]

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

I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for automobiles are, but I just can't find enough significant reliable coverage for this car: the best I could find are passing mentions or web forums. The company that made the car doesn't appear to have a Wikipedia article, so this can't be redirected. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an article on German WP [3] on the company, a small family business that produced a couple of dozen cars, which I wouldn't think is notable here, let alone this model. MB 03:04, 3 April 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. under criterion WP:CSD#A7.Deleted by Anthony Bradbury (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fazmeer Rasheed[edit]

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

Blatant self-advertising and promotion - may yet qualify for a speedy by A7. All sources are personal links and thus are not acceptable sources - the article could therefore fail to meet GNGs. GammaRadiator (talk) 10:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as per nom. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 10:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The normal kind. Being ostensibly a "published researcher" and web developer is probably enough to just barely...and I mean barely squeak by A7, and at least warrant a glancing evaluation of whether the individual might meet WP:PROF. So evaluation completed, and the answer is a resounding no, beside being a flagrant violation of WP:NOTLINKEDIN to boot. We're already at AfD, so we may as well qualify the poor fellow for G4 while we've got the table all nice and set. I'd also note the lovely and obvious COI account trying to blank the AfD discussion, which is even more reason to get a good solid consensus for the nuclear option, so we can insta-speedy and look to salt if the article is repeatedly recreated, as I suspect it may likely be. TimothyJosephWood 12:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also opened a sockpuppet case, as there is a definate nonzero chance both @Nazlan: and @Fazmeerdj: are linked together. Is this too far? GammaRadiator (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator permabanned for sockpuppetry. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Fazmeerdj).

We can CSD under G5.GammaRadiator (talk) 14:50, 27 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 spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Directorgifty[edit]

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

Fails to show importance (no sources) - page created by editor shows a blatant conflict of interest - look at page creator's name - could qualify for speedy by A7 (there was a A7/G11 tag, which was removed by the page creator). Has previously been speedied by A7 five times prior. GammaRadiator (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GammaRadiator: It wasn't removed by a third party, it was removed by the page creator(which is not permitted) who seems to be the subject of the page. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Noted and nomination altered in light of info. Thanks :)

Speedy Delete WP:A7 and Salt. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:35, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rishabh Rana[edit]

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

Non-notable actor fails to pass general notability guideline. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability per WP:ENT or GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 07:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:27, 3 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Farman Ali Malik[edit]

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

The article was tagged as maybe not meeting the notability for authors at the beginning of February but nothing has been added since to help prove his notability. I have found nothing myself. As it stands he fails WP:NAUTHOR. Domdeparis (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BASIC GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.FITINDIA (talk) 17:13, 27 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. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter¹²³ (warn) 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Service Providers Association[edit]

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

Non notable organisation. Fails WP:NCORP Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Significant trade body. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and... how do we know this? There isn't evidence of this in the article as far as I can see. Ajf773 (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We know this because we go on the internet and have a look! This is AfD, not cleanup! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And you did this and found what exactly? I found nothing of any significance to support notability. Ajf773 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This organisation can be seen to have presented to the UK parliament, both in oral hearings and in writing, for example, on the Investigatory Powers Bill (now Act) (pages 356-68 of [4], also reported in New Scientist) and the ongoing Digital Economy Bill ([5]). AllyD (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable industry association; significant RS coverage not found, while this content belongs on the org's web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:06, 2 April 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. Delete both Christ Church Bal and Christ Church Tibber, no credible claims of significance. Bishonen | talk 03:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Church Bal[edit]

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

Makes no credible claim of significance for the church either as a building or as a religious community. DePRODed by author. TheDragonFire (talk) 07:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following similar page by the same author (Nehemiah Mattu):

TheDragonFire (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as specified in my original PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This appears to be the AFD for two articles. Delete both. Neither makes any credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Neither meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) f eminist 11:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bartolomeo Scala[edit]

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

No sources cited. Unknown Notability Alexf505 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the claims that Bartolomeo Scala served as Chancellor, Secretary, Gonfaloniere and Priore of the Florentine Republic are true, which initial searches seems to suggest is the case, then he meets WP:NPOL. AusLondonder (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The beefy Italian article suggests substantial notability. See also Alison Brown, Bartolomeo Scala, 1430-1497, Chancellor of Florence: The Humanist As Bureaucrat 84.73.134.206 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for translation from Italian. I'll grant that the article is in dire need of improvement, but the Italian article is much more substantial and cites some actual sources — and the base notability claim is a clear WP:NPOL pass. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 28 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Liptrot[edit]

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

fails WP:JOURNALIST, nothing in gnews. and only 2 articles link here. one of them, simply an alumni listing of a university she attended. LibStar (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable television presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:15, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of words in English with tripled letters[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC indiscriminate list, unsourced, as is, this is not useful for anything. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't look like an encyclopedic topic and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ajf773 (talk) 06:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -With no claim as to why this concept is notable and no sources discussing it, this is nothing but an indiscriminate list of trivia. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is very basic, reads like trivia and offers no evidence of notability unlike List of English words containing Q not followed by U. Dunarc (talk) 15:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:29, 3 April 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of places named for Andrew Jackson[edit]

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

Indiscriminate unsourced list, this category of lists is not notable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No real reason has been given for deletion. The criterion is quite specific, not indiscriminate, and lack of sourcing can be fixed. Why single Jackson out among the many, many such lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this list is hardly indiscriminate. Lepricavark (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "hero in the war of 1812"--which the US started with us and lost--is hardly going to recommend him to me, as a Canadian Wikipedian. Nor is Trump's efforts to brand himself alongside him. But I don't see why we'd single Jackson out at Category:Lists of places named after people, whatever the issues. Keep Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Naming is a pretty interesting, political, and social process, and a list of this sort when there are many places named after an individual seems encyclopedic and useful. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not indiscriminate, this list is a valid spinoff from the section of Andrew Jackson on Memorials. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We do not allow categories for this kind of thing, but I see no objection to a list. However, Middle and Primary schools are generally NN and should either be de-linked of linked to a list article for education in their area, or their education board. This is to discourage the creation of articles on NN subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 2 April 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 currently avoids major BLP concerns. Further, discussion(in borderline cases) and/or revision deletion (in outright violations); not deletion, is the way out, if they have occured in any version.Also, we don't delete random biographical articles simply per the wishes of the subject. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 13:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kola Boof (author)[edit]

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

Please see Wikipedia:OTRS_noticeboard#Kola_Boof: Recreation of Kola Boof. Speedily deleted twice in 2007 with reason per BLP concerns from subject. Deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive20#Kola_Boof and the article remained deleted. As far as I could find, the subject objected against the content. Starting from nationality to every single aspect of the article. About 50 emails concerning legal threats. The current stub has the same problems, is unsourced and as such against WP:BLP. In its current form I think it should be deleted. I would like further feedback on what matter of course would be best, and would like to discuss the subject properly via a deletion discussion this time instead of a speedy deletion. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't see how the current stub could cause any BLP-related concerns, and the subject of the article appears to meet the General Notability Guideline - see here, here, here... I could go on and on. The subject of the article has given countless interviews and sent out press releases, so there can be no claim that they don't want to be in the public eye. Frankly, I'm confused by the situation - since when does Wikipedia remove innocuous stub articles based on unfounded concerns? Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The New York Times article demonstrates that Kola Boof is notable. Considering she claims she was sexually assaulted by a person, who many in the media say she is "the former mistress of", I can see how there are major BLP concerns, but the article at present avoids that issue. Here is what Pen America has to say of her https://pen.org/user/kola-boof/?member "KOLA BOOF (born Naima Bint Harith) is an award-winning Egyptian-Sudanese novelist, poet and television writer. CNN dubbed her “the most controversial woman in the world.” There is clearly something here, although it would be nice if there was a way to get to quality sources that avoid BLP issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BUT: Just looked at the article. It states her nationality, however, the two sources given for that claim don't actually back that claim up. One source (New York Times) mentions Sudan multiple times but never mentions her nationality as such, so I'd remove her nationality until it can be sourced reliably. That and we don't delete articles because the subject says to. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 15:18, 30 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Officine Piccini S.p.A[edit]

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

Non-notable company with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a firm in Italy, consisting largely of a product list. No equivalent article on the Italian Wikipedia, and my searches are finding nothing better than routine listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 27 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOMA[edit]

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

This does not yet seem to exist, at least not in any medical journals or even regular reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Part of what appears to be a walled garden; already deleted by these editors: Erie Society for Eccentric Neuropathies, Erie Society for Foreign Autisms, and Spencer Garrison, the supposed discoverer of LOMA. Drmies (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, then redirect to Loma. Not a recognized term. (How do you even get "LOMA" from "Transcircadian Neuroatypical Hyperemesis"?) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This looks more like a hoax. Hyperemesis is vomiting, a flapping test is one that seems to fail randomly, etc. Debouch (talk) 14:34, 27 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 The Latin American Xchange. (non-admin closure) f eminist 11:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santana (pro wrestler)[edit]

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

Non-notable wrestler, article is poorly written and poorly sourced. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 04:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to The Latin American Xchange. Same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ortiz (wrestler). Not independently notable of group. Nikki♥311 17:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to The Latin American Xchange. Same reasoning as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ortiz (wrestler). Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 07:45, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Bowl (2013)[edit]

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

This article seems to fail WP:SPORTSEVENT - no well-sourced prose to assert notability of this regular season game (emphasis added). The page primarily only consists of statistics, and does not give sourced information on significance or importance, like for example Heidi Game, Miracle at the Meadowlands, and 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy. A National Football League game merely played in blizzard conditions is not automatically notable because there have been several such matches played in December throughout the years. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this specific game had no lasting significance. As the nom says, several games have been played in snowstorms. Lepricavark (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. The only thing significant about this game is that it snowed heavily during the game. That is not notable. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:30, 3 April 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A21TV (Armenia)[edit]

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

Recently launched TV channel. Unproven notability. Unreliable sources were used as references. XXN, 15:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly problems with the article, but unless it's a hoax it would seem to me to meet WP:BROADCAST for either stations or cable networks, whichever this actually is. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:BROADCAST is very liberal: If it broadcasts, it's considered notable. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:04, 27 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cushman[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. It appears WP:INHERIT and WP:PROMO also apply. John from Idegon (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete I found the following: http://www.hellhoundmusic.com/former-reliant-k-drummer-stephen-cushman-releases-acoustic-video-for-new-project-red-giants/ and http://www.artistdirect.com/entertainment-news/article/watch-ex-relient-k-drummer-stephen-cushman-perform-acoustic-covers/10995946 that are short mentions of one of his projects. The following are RSes that mention him, but nothing in detail: https://truetunes.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/relient-k-interview-june-2002/ (yes, the blog of a RS publication) https://www.louisville.com/events/switchfoot-relient-k-looking-america-tour-part-ii http://music.mxdwn.com/2014/08/08/new-york-city/relient-k-blondfire-from-indian-lakes-gramercy-theatre-1204/ http://www.allmusic.com/artist/stephen-cushman-mn0001864090 so I don't see the subject meeting MUSIBIO and definitely not WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Clark (programmer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Is an WP:AUTOBIO. Possibly consider deleting creator's userpage as it appears to be WP:FAKEARTICLE. DrStrauss talk 12:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note See comments by subject on the talk page of this AFD — Train2104 (t • c) 17:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In response to the point above, please refer to the Works section and References list in the article in question for evidence demonstrating notable academic contributions through multiple published and reliable sources. Please also note that I edited the article in question and am not Christopher Clark. Status418 (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 18:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - fails WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC as all sources are trivial. Quasar G ^{t - c} 20:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I received my PhD in computer science in 2009. I referred to Christopher Clark's work at multiple places in my dissertation Measuring and extending LR(1) parser generation: 1) Page v, Acknowledgement; 2) Page 16, "Chris Clark worked on the LALR(k)/LR(1)/LR(k) parser generator Yacc++"; 3) Page 170, "Chris Clark also mentioned one type of grammar that he calls the LR(closed) grammar [4]"; 4) Page 170, "Figure 6.10: The part of Chris Clark’s grammar’s parsing machine related to reduce/reduce conflicts"; 5) Page 212, reference "[4] LR(closed) grammars"; 6) Page 213, reference "[23] Chris Clark. Yacc++ historical notes". 19:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As said above, the relevant guidelines are WP:GNG and WP:ACADEMIC, which are not met. Citations in one's thesis are irrelevant. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NACADEMIC and WP:AUTOBIO. Support blanking User:Christopher.f.clark as an inappropriate use of userspace; Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service for people to put up their autobiographies. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Not huge evidence of notability, but I think it just makes it, and anyway the only possible alternative would be "no consensus", which would lead to the same end result. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love for the Elderly[edit]

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

promotional article for very local organization. The Glamour and USA Today articles is just mention in a general article--Glamour 1 of 31, USAToday, 1 of 10. Huff Post is worthless for notability. That leaves only local sources for a local organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With (claimed) volunteers in 56 countries, the organization may not be that local, but even if it were - being featured on national TV (Rede Record in Brazil [6] and an interview with Harry Connick Jr in the US), in addition to cover story on American Profile [7] and regional coverage, are sufficient per WP:ORG. As for style and content, it truly needs some work, but that's nothing irreparable. -- IsaacSt (talk) 11:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Love for the Elderly has been on international television like Rede Record and regional coverage as well which abides by WP:ORG. It also operates globally to impact senior-aged citizens. --Mayamarks (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 27 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. Wizardman 01:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Towradgi Public School[edit]

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

Primary school with no indication of notability. Was successfully prodded back in 2015 see here, so can not be prodded again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For what it's worth I was fully prepared to delete this under the rationale given, if it hadn't been for the previous PROD forcing the formality of an AfD. Easy delete !vote. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fairy Meadow, New South Wales#Education per standard practice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The school is not mentioned in the proposed target article, but it is mentioned in Towradgi, New South Wales. It seems it has the Towradgi post code, despite the address being listed as Fairy Meadow. Perhaps merge to include the school in Towradgi, New South Wales? I have edited the school's article, added a couple of citations. There is a little about the school being part of a state government pilot program that was successful enough to be expanded, and the school has a continuous history of over 60 years. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given previous PROD and no new notability assessment just delete it.CalzGuy (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 27 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. Sandstein 17:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Abbott (musician)[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sources are indepdent reliable sources of the type to add towards GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss ASEAN[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. The article did not received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Richie Campbell (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Laos-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources provided nor found to establish notability. Can this be speedy deleted? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:33, 3 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Garcia (athlete)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NTRACK. I don't think the SEC championship qualifies as a "competition at the highest level". Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:18, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable by WP:NTRACK or any non-athletic reason. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 27 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 The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life. Sandstein 17:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Warrior[edit]

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

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

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Notability not inherited from her husband. Nikki♥311 22:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 22:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life, which is where I redirected it years ago. I actually wish that there was enough material out there for an article on her because her appearances have become a staple of WrestleMania weekend since her husband died but I've done some searching and unfortunately there just isn't much out there about her.LM2000 (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes I agree with LM2000, there just isn't enough evidence that she's independently notable. Almost all mentions of her are more about her late husband.★Trekker (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or Redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.86.216 (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Fmm134 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmm134 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You have to motivate your reasoning.★Trekker (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life as above. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the motivation for the redirect option exactly from all these IPs exactly?★Trekker (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little confused by that myself. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "motivation" is the same as everyone else who has suggested a redirect, because that is what the article originally was? 86.3.174.49 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good but it's always a little suspicious when a several IPs show up and leave barley motivated non-delete opinion. Nothing against you specifically.★Trekker (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep This article is very important, this is notable and just not a junk useless article. This all about the Ultimate Warrior's Wife, Who signed as brand ambassadress in past few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.98.184 (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use actual arguments for why she is notable not just plead and insist that she is. PROVE it. Saying "please please" will not help.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life.GuzzyG (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think about it carefully, before takes quick decisions. Think more and one more time, otherwise this maybe helpful she was inducted to WWE Hall of Fame of his husband and his legacy... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.100.27 (talk)

What is this nonsense sentence even supposed to mean? We don't keep article in the hope that the person might turn out to be notable in the future. What's with it with all these damn IP editors out of nowhere?★Trekker (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please see, WP:USEFUL. "It's useful" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Nikki♥311 20:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Ultimate Warrior#Personal life. Per what LM2000 and Trekker said above, there's not enough material as a standalone article, if everything sourced there is her WrestleMania weekend appearances following the death of her husband. Nickag989^talk 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Stoltz[edit]

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

Relisting under AfD. The article relies on two self-published external links for sources, and there are no inline citations. It reads more like a résumé, and based on prior talk page interaction, there is potential conflict of interest here. As a BLP, it fails the 'verifiability' and 'no original research' core content policies. Wani (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - On a purely procedural point, you could have just proposed this for deletion as a regular WP: PROD. WP: BLPPROD is an expedited process for BLPs with absolutely no sourcing, but BLPs can still be deleted through the general PROD process. On topic: this clearly lacks the sourcing needed to establish notability, and the lack of sourcing is especially damaging given the article is a BLP. A quick search of the guy's name doesn't turn up any significant coverage.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad. When BLPPROD said "no sources", I was thinking 'no reliable sources', instead of 'no source whatsoever' (including external links). Then after the BLPPROD was taken down, I wasn't sure if I could submit a regular PROD, so I'll be sure to keep that in mind next time. Wani (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable video game producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:50, 28 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. Sandstein 17:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Breeze[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Of all the sources given in the article, the only one that was unaffiliated, not behind a paywall, not a mention in passing, and not essentially commentary by him instead of about him is this one. A Google search turns up little else. Largoplazo (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - this is significant too - [8]. A search shows more possible sources - but they are all centered around the big purchase of jets by Jet Republic. Sources can be behind a paywall - FT, NYT, WP, Economist - these are major sources.Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sources can be behind a paywall. I was just being fully transparent, that I didn't see what they had (actually, I think it was only one source, or maybe two from the same website). On the other hand, those sources might well also not have significant coverage of Breeze. Largoplazo (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that deletion may make sense.Thedaytodaytomorrow (talk) 15:50, 28 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 . Materialscientist (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anozie Ugochukwu Calistus[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he played in the Israeli Premier League. This claim was based on an erroneous statement in the article, which said that he had played for Hapoel Ramat-Gan when he had actually played for Hakoah Ramat-Gan. Given that he has only ever played in the second divisions in Israel and Nigeria, this article does not meet WP:NSPORT Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per corrected article. -- IsaacSt (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons specified above - by people who know a lot more about football than I do. Deb (talk) 08:34, 27 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.

[Stern_2012-1] Stern, Bradley (January 3, 2012). "Paradiso Lost: Chelsea Korka Launches Solo Career". MuuMuse. Retrieved April 3, 2017.

[1]