Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 March	1 April >

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TI Taxi[edit]

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

This SBS show was never broadcast, so it may have not even been completed. The two listed references are dead. Does not appear to be notable. Boneymau (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a quick Google search and found only one link referencing it (a shady-looking torrent site). Definitely not notable, it might even be a hoax. --— Chevvin 23:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax, was commisioned by SBS and was being developed by Pixa House, a production company formed by some of the people from RAN Remote Area Nurse (TV series). Had public casting calls in NEQ. Filming was expected in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffbeerforme (talk • contribs) 11:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Never aired, lacks coverage. There is Wilson, Alf (30 January 2008), "Hopefuls join TI Taxi ranks", Koori Mail on it's development but that's indiscriminate puff. There's also two, "Indigenous actors wanted", Townsville Bulletin, 6 December 2007 and "Thursday Island to host television comedy series", The Cairns Post, 1 December 2007, in local NEQ papers but they are just PR for the upcoming casting call. But thats it, not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments - never aired and most likely non-notable. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:54, 6 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 withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Berlin Feminist Film Week[edit]

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

Only found one reference on Google News, and that was just acknowledging its existence. Borders on a PROD due to lack of notability. It seems unlikely that more NPOV external sources can be found. South Nashua (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

... and the fact that there is no German Wikipedia article on the event doesn't give one confidence, either. 13:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment No German Wikipedia article is troublesome to me as well (however obviously not complete 'deal-breaker'). I did however find some entries in Google that are potentially notable for this? Berlin Film Journal Is that potentially notable (for an example) South Nashua? My Google Search--TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I think we'd need a couple to pass GNG. Thank you for your efforts searching, though. South Nashua (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I agree with that haha. Here are two more I was able to find - at that was going through 10 pages of that google search I linked. Amnesty.de and TheUpcoming.co.uk (not sure if this one is notable or not...) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: I guess we could give it a go. I don't like proposing deletion just for deletion's sake, if something can be saved, I'm okay to roll with that. South Nashua (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: So what happens now? We work on the article or? (new to AfD) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: An admin will close this as the nomination is technically withdrawn now. (If I was an admin, I'd close it, but alas, I am not.) Happy to work on the article with you, but my expertise is a mile wide and an inch deep, not sure if I can add much. South Nashua (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@South Nashua: I am not sure where to start other than proving it potentially notable haha. And you can close them yourself - see User talk:Mz7#Question about MfD discussions. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:21, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Hoffman (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Myspace and IMDb are not reliable sources. Most of the other sourcing is to companies she has worked with. Nothing comes close to showing she is a notable broadcaster.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in third-party reliable sources. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 17:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:09, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prekmurje–Styria derby[edit]

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

Fails notability, none of the 15 sources are about the so-called rivarly, googling doesnt provide any significant coverage; the main result for "štajersko-prekmurski derbi" is a volleyball match between some obscure teams, white there are almost no results for football match (and even those few results are just routine match reports). Snowflake91 (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 13:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG; also see WP:NRIVALRY Spiderone 13:33, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 11:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is well referenced and cited. True it does not appear that there is much of a rivalry between the two clubs compared to other instances, but I think the information is useful and should be kept. At the very worst part of the text and sources should be merged into the two club articles. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – (Almost) the same text is already at NK Maribor#Rivalries for several years. Its true that the article is well-sourced, but all sources are completely out of context, none of the sources are direclty about the rivalry itself, for example the 1st, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, and 11th reference confirms that one club was disbanded and re-eastblished (nothing to do with a rivarly, so basically half of the references are about the year in which the club(s) were established), the second source is head-to-head statistics, third and four reference is not about football at all but about Gross domestic product of the region, 12th reference is another H2H statistics etc. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Snowflake, whilst the article looks well referenced, there is nothing there which discusses the rivalry as a notion in itself. At best there are references to match reports which are used to synthesise discussion of a rivalry. Furthermore just because something is interesting is never a reason to keep an article. Fenix down (talk) 09:36, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Strickland[edit]

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

100% of the sourcing surrounds his death. There doesn't seem to be any notability asserted before then. Backroad Anthem doesn't seem to meet WP:BAND, as there was zero coverage of them before the death of their lead vocalist. This is just a no-name that got a lot of buzz for dying and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete generally agree with this (ahem) somewhat harshly worded deletion rationale. The band is sometimes described as "up and coming", so it may be WP:TOOSOON for any of this. This could someday be a redirect to the band page's history section if and when the band becomes sufficiently notable for inclusion. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:59, 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. The only keep opinions are by WP:SPA and possibly WP:COI accounts. Sandstein 06:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non è mai Passato[edit]

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

No evidence indicated or found that this meets notability guidelines for films or anything else. Low budget short film, yet to be released (reportedly due December 2017), so WP:CRYSTAL as well. Prodded but PROD removed by IP editor. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with both of the original points. bojo | talk 13:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some actors of the short film are present on the site "Malta Film Commission" and the short is on IMDb ; I am the creator of the page, if you want I'll add information/details --Bussival (talk) 13:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page respect the requirements. — Giovaxim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bussival, IMDB contains a lot of a people/films/etc that do not meet wikipedia's notability requirements, and even an announced feature-length film with notable actors on IMDB does not have inherent notability (since films fail to progress all the time), per WP:NFF. What would be needed would be evidence of significant coverage sufficient to meet general or film-specific notability guidelines. That's difficult but not impossible for a short micro-budget film to meet, but would likely not be until the film is at least on the festival circuit and attracting significant independent critical attention and possibly awards. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreleased films are typically not notable. I don't find anything to contradict that. IMDB is not a measure of notability.Glendoremus (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I inform you that there has been an budget increase thanks to external collaborations --Bussival (talk) 08:38, 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 . wbm1058 (talk) 01:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lake George 12ster[edit]

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

Mentions of this online appear to be confined to fewer than ten places presented by Google, including Facebook and meet-up sources. Unlikely that it's widely known or that it meets notability. On the article talk page, the author compares it to Adirondack Forty-Sixers, and it seems to be a recent idea based on that model. Even so, it may be WP:TOOSOON. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Just because it's like a famous thing, does not mean it is also a notable thing. This fails because of WP:NEO. I lived in Upstate New York for 24 years and never heard of this. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article calls it a "new hiking challenge". May someday be a thing, but seems to not be a thing yet. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 07:30, 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coy Bowles[edit]

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

Should be a redirect to the band. But redirect keeps getting reverted. Not enough in-depth sourcing about the individual musician to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Below are some sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Gwinnett Daily Post
The Plain Dealer
People magazine
Indianapolis Star

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources found by Northamerica1000 convey notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 00:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 06:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE. This can be well sourced. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs some work, but the sources found by North strongly lead me to believe this one's a keeper. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, remove the WP:PRIMARY sources and improve the article. In addition to the sources above, the Google search has many more. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broscience[edit]

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

Neologism with only three sources, a quackwatch blog post that doesn't mention the term, and two of the most unreliable sources imaginable: rationalwiki and the urban dictionary. Mduvekot (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Crikey. Non-notable neologism.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to see here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 14:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It might be possible to have an article on the topic, but the present article is rubbish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources exist for this neologism; perhaps it is just too soon. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pile-on, fails WP:NEO and no clear redirect target (or reason for looking for one)... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above reasoning. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 6 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 redirect to Collectiv3. The arguments by "EVER Entertainment" (actually CamLagos1) would be interesting ... if they weren't transparenly by somebody affiliated with the subject. They are disregarded per WP:COI. Sandstein 06:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poe (rapper)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A search of him on Google shows press releases about his record deal with Mavin Records. It also shows circulated news about Kemi Adetiba having a crush on him. The subject has not received significant coverage to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject is part of the music collective, Collectiv3. However, notability cannot be inherited. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 23:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Poe (Rapper) Artist should meet conditions of general criteria as follows:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself -- Examples include credible online magazines such as OkayAfrica ^[1] and online reprints of broadcast media, such as Viacom-owned MTV Base/MTV Networks Africa ^[2]

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart -- Requirement does not specify concerning song ownership, as artist has songwriting rights to charting singles in Nigeria and Africa. Examples include "Marry Me" by Falz ft. Poe and Yemi Alade and "Chardonnay Music" by Falz ft. Poe and Chyn ^[3]

6. Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles -- This guideline should be satisfied by involvement in Collectiv3, but also under Mavin Records. Artists signed to the label can be considered an ensemble due to the release of their compilations ^[4]

8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award -- It should be taken into consideration that the Nigerian Entertainment Awards and The Headies are two of Africa's (let alone Nigeria's) biggest awards shows, for which this artist has been both nominated and an award recipient.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. -- Again, this should be satisfied by the Collectiv3 involvement/release of 'Collectiv3' compilation album. Also, artist has had several performance/appearances on several Nigerian television shows. Examples include: 'The Juice'/Ndani TV ^[5] and Ebonylife TV ^[6]

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network -- Artist is regularly in rotation on national radio stations. Also, MTV Base is a major African television network (MTV Networks Africa/Viacom). Artist has had singles/music videos including top single "Adore Her" in MTV's rotation as well as mentioned in online extension of television channel ^[7].

12. Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network -- Artist is regularly featured on national radio. While broadcasts are not online, examples of artist presence include online features: Urban 96.5 ^[8], Fuze Radio ^[9] and Smooth FM 98.1 personality Folu Storms' radio show (extended online ^[10]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVER Entertainment (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Collectiv3 for now. The subject is a case of WP:TOOSOON —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oluwa2Chainz: I concur with you that it is too soon. Having said that, the rapper is dope. I forsee him being big. I like his rap verse on M.I's "All Fall Down" song. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BeIN Series (MENA)[edit]

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

Non notable traffic generator page for Qatari channel. Only sources are to offshoots of subjects own website. L3X1 (distant write) 20:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nonsense deletion reason. Known channel in the MENA region from popular media company. Nate • (chatter) 20:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BCAST

- most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes. It doesn't produce original content
- Its not a TV network, we are talking about a channel on the network. beIN Channels Network is notable. This article isn't, and if not deleted should be redirected back to parent article. NOTINHERITED. My rationale is nonsense my foot. L3X1 (distant write) 20:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:
- The vast majority of television stations serve a large regional market, often covering millions of households. beIN Series covers a large area; it is available in more than 23 countries.
- Because of the public interest served, most television stations that produce original content should be presumed notable for Wikipedia purposes. The channel produces original content (via Miramax, a subsidiary of beIN Media Group), and broadcasts exclusive foreign programing in the MENA region, which makes it clearly "original".
- beIN Series has sister channels in Turkey (beIN Series (Turkey)). A merge between the two pages can be an alternative solution, if sources do not exist at all. — Sincerely Issimo 15 21:44, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nom. Comment I feel like parrot, so to avoid BLUDGEON I'll only say this one last time: This is a channel, not a TV network. L3X1 (distant write) 22:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but NBROADCAST explicitly covers both stations and networks, including national or regional cable channels. So I'm not sure that's a pertinent distinction in this case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Software Quality Systems AG[edit]

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

I am nominating Software Quality Solutions AG for deletion because in 7 years time, it has failed to get a verifiable source other than it's own website on the wiki. I believe it violates policy #7: Verifiability, and policy #8: Notability, as well as possibly policy #4 advertisement.

When Googling the company, the first 4 pages are either their own sources or just stock updates, or reports on their profits. Nothing on what they actually do. As far as I can tell from outside sources, the company only makes profits, and I don't feel that is notable.

Furthermore, the since there seems to be a lack of coverage of anything other than their profits, the only thing we can really say for sure about the company from 3rd party sources is their profits and stocks. Because of this, most of the article should be removed as it's not sourced.

Finally, the page has had problems in the past where it was written like an advertisement. Likely the company itself wrote it's article, and uses it to generate business. This is a violation of the guidelines.

This is my first major change to Wikipedia, and please let me know if I'm out of line here. I came here looking for information about what they do, and what their software does, but instead found the same information that occurs on their website. I honestly don't know why this whole page couldn't be replaced by a redirect to their website. ChthonicOne (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and rewrite. The article is crap and needs a rewrite as it does feel like an advert, and agree that a Google search on the company name doesn't reveal much

https://www.european-business.com/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag/portrait/

http://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/s/sqs-software-quality-systems-ord-eur1/share-news

And news-related sources

http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/9405310-dgap-adhoc-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-director-pdmr-shareholdings

https://www.researchpool.com/provider/directors-deals/sqs-two-directors-bought-4000-shares-at-505p

But then I searched Google News (link at top of page) and found a lot of sources:

https://www.chaffeybreeze.com/2017/03/16/insider-buying-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-insider-acquires-2000-shares-of-stock.html

http://petroglobalnews24.com/2017-03-15-sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-rating-lowered-to-hold-at-n1-singer/

https://sportsperspectives.com/2017/03/14/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-cut-to-hold-at-n1-singer.html

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/174382/sqs-software-is-confident-industry-trends-are-in-its-favour-174382.html

https://www.chaffeybreeze.com/2017/03/09/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-sqs-pt-lowered-to-gbx-688.html Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, all the news about the company that I could find was stock and profit updates. That is all you seemed to have found as well. They do have short blurbs about what the company does, but each one seems identical, so where did it come from? I'm not opposed to a rewrite of the article, but with the information given, the article will go from being about what the company does to how the company has performed with the sources available. Is that notable? ChthonicOne (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the content is strictly promotional & it belongs on the company web site. Notability is not inherited from prominent clients. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED the fact that it is listed on the main market of the London Stock Exchange may not be sufficient, but there is public research/analyst coverage, so tend to favour a keep. Such as

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/174382/sqs-software-is-confident-industry-trends-are-in-its-favour-174382.html

http://www.capitalcube.com/blog/index.php/sqs-software-quality-systems-ag-undervalued-relative-to-peers-but-dont-ignore-the-other-factors-2/?yptr=yahoo

http://investing.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article/id/5510033/ Jake Brockman (talk) 16:54, 7 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. Main deletion reason was copyvio concerns, while the latter delete comment seems to be addressed. Kurykh (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc A. Levin[edit]

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

@Diannaa and Chuckdevore: Queried speedy delete: At 22:41, 14 March 2017‎ User:Diannaa speedy-delete-tagged page Marc A. Levin as copyvio of [1], but I have received an email that says "Please look at the link to the .pdf you cited as justification for unambiguous copyright infringement, you'll see it was written by Marc A. Levin in his capacity as Director, Right on Crime. The Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit think tank that operates Right on Crime, published the paper which justnet.org published online. ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we can't and don't take people's word for it that they have permission to copy copyright material to this website. They have to provide proof that they have permission to do so. This is done via the OTRS ticket system. Please see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think I have addressed the copyright issues. There may still be a notability issue here, but at least it no longer appears to be a blatant copyvio. Marquardtika (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied that the copyright issue has been resolved and have done some revision deletion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think notability is close with the Politico and Mother Jones links, but still not quite there. If there are more external sources, I'd probably change my mind. I did a quick search and it was mostly another Marc Levin known for political things. South Nashua (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

asking User:South Nashua to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Weak Keep Thank you for the heads up, I think it's above the threshold now on external sources. South Nashua (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Started sourcing him, there's more to add, but I think his role as founder and head of Right on Crime makes him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:53, 31 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. Coverage is thin and promotional. Possibly the suggestion for creating Koala Clancy Foundation instead could fly, if somebody is able to find any depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources for that. (I'm having trouble seeing any, myself.) Bishonen | talk 20:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Koala Day[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, promotional due to excessive inline external links Kleuske (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. This is very nearly WP:TNT territory and also possible WP:COI with the article creator (see [2]). That said, there is enough significant mentions in independent media [3] [4] [5] [6] (most of which are already linked from the article) [7] [8] [9] [10] to support notability of something here. Suggest Move to Koala Clancy Foundation, stripping out the obvious promotional/advocacy language (Surely its time to invest in koalas before they are lost forever? Really?) make "Wild Koala Day" a subsection under a "Programs" section, and provide more information about the foundation. In other words, the issues here are mainly editorial, not ones of notability. If this is kept, I would be willing to help implement these changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:55, 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) 00:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up and move as per Eggishorn's well-founded comments. With a shift in focus to the organization, the available sources allow shaping a reasonable article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sheer lack of sources. The list of sources in article and given by editor above are overwhelmingly primary or mere event listings in local paper. We often see this sort of source over-stuffing in AfDs and article about non-notable, bands and first-time novelists: looks like a news article, turns out to be a calendar listing. Here's a gNews search [11]; some, but not much, certainly not enough. Delete as per WP:SOAPBOX. For what it's worth, I am an environmentalist who has gone 10,000 miles out of my way to see koala bears in the wild (okay, I also checked out a few other species of fauna and the tree ferns while in the neighborhood. But I am a strict constructionist and even feel-good causes need sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles 6,8,and 9 are certainly not event listings, and I'm hard-pressed to understand how News.com.au (one of the biggest news sites in Australia) counts as a local source. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source # 6 in the Geelong Advertiser is a photo and a singel sentence. #s 8, 9 are primary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per First world problems & WP:TOOSOON. This is all rather trivial and coverage not substantial enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:17, 6 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 no consensus. No prejudice towards having a merge discussion elsewhere. Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Campbell Times[edit]

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

Small-ish bi-weekly student paper. Best of Show at a statewide CMA competition was the best I could find.[12] Mark Schierbecker (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Campbell University#The Campbell Times, where the additional detail about the paper's history and circulation will be a positive addition. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the rationale of Arxiloxos above. A valid WP:ATD-M. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We keep university newspapers just as we keep small town newspapers and small defunct newspapers, because, as User:doncram states at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The University Register, "it is a lot like how we are a gazetteer for places, these are places that are sources."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did say what E.M.Gregory quotes. It does seem to me that newspapers are fundamental elements of an encyclopedia, the atoms that we rely upon for everything else. We are a "gazetteer" about places, basically willing to cover most places that have any sourcing about them, and newspapers are even more basic. Here, with The Campbell Times, we have a newspaper that lived just two years, but it is a source, and currently we know about it from this article that someone went through the bother of figuring out, and it should be kept. --do ncr am 19:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the suggestion above that it could be merged to Campbell University#The Campbell Times is reasonable on its face, but in fact the article is too long already to merge back. One sentence in the University article is about right. It is reasonable to split out the newspaper article as too much material for the university. It is four sentences plus some information in the infobox and in categories/links; it is a reasonable editorial decision to split it out. It is also too much information already to be merged into a list of defunct newspapers in the state. --do ncr am 19:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing Media[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. Quick Google search revealed most hits on this term were about a representation agency for musicians in the UK, so it's my assumption additional external sources are unlikely. South Nashua (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the company is a game developer that is indeed hard to find information about, but they've made multiple games that were notable enough for Wikipedia, and have made many of games for Interplay, the studio responsible for Earthworm Jim, Fallout, etc, so they are notable, just difficult to find info on, I will admit. Greasemann (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Delete GNG not met. Notability is not inherited - being involved in notable games is not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alright fine, it's not that great of an article anyways, as you can tell. Greasemann (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2017 (UTC)Greasemann[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 18:39, 1 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hernando Williams[edit]

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

Non-notable criminal with little media coverage, fails WP:CRIME and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Lexiconoflife (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally fails the guidelines that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question is whether the subject is notable per WP:N, WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. This is a case of WP:ONEEVENT. The first or last person executed by a state might be notable. Others not so much.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:09, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable crime.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:59, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Entrepreneurship: Case Study of Genesis International llc Oman[edit]

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

Reads very much like a personal essay, which I'm not sure can be turned into a neutral article about the company. Also, I'm not sure the company is notable. Also, I believe there are concerns about peacock words, such as, "...one of the most successful entrepreneurs..." and "His family owns the Al Khonji Group and Abdulrahman Group, which fall into the list of the most successful companies in Oman" (no reference for that). Seagull123 Φ 18:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR, SPAM, GNG, etc. South Nashua (talk) 18:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPAM, non-encyclopaedic and possible copyvio as it looks copied/translated from a press release (even though I could not find the source with a quick search). Fbergo (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure, unmitigated spam. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP, even if it were not spam. Bearian (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:58, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Antonio Toriello[edit]

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

Probably notable but the only hope for this article is WP:TNT. ProgrammingGeek^talktome 18:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Strong delete The style is horrible, and the sourcing does not demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional garbage. The subject fails WP:GNG. Many of the references are mere mentions or are not independent. Because an article about this subject was deleted before, I'm wondering if this isn't eligible under WP:G4. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:58, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Koulik Bhattacharjee[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:TOOSOON, passing mentions only in the sources mentioned. Kleuske (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a 14/15 year old who has not yet made major impacts in the music scene.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He does seem to be a talented kid who may accomplish enough to meet our notability guidelines in the future, but I don't see the significant independent coverage to meet WP:BIO at this time. Peacock (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as notability has not been adequately established. The two articles in The Statesman referenced in the article only briefly mention his name. Other references are WP:USERG, and I couldn't find any other secondary source. — Stringy Acid (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:29, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jerald Justin Ko (JK)[edit]

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

Fails notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sportsfan 1234 What do you mean by "Fails notability"? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most radio DJs are not notable, and there is nothing her to show that Ko is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the sources confirm a very unremarkable career. fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 08:05, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie J Leonard[edit]

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

Searches turned up virtually zero about this author, whether using the middle initial, not using the middle initial, or using her pen name of BJ. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using "BJ Leonard" as the search text at Google, I see the following favorable reviews: Goodreads Tellest Fantasy Author Reveiws Female Author Profile Amazon Books Reviews Azanmi (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)azanmi[reply]

Delete Goodreads is a user generated site, not a reliable source, and Amazon.com reviews are a dime a dozen. Nothing shows actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Allyn[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, fails notability for music criteria. - TheMagnificentist 07:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in the top 100 is not wide spread, in-depth coverage. WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesina Anderson[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced biography of a person notable primarily as a city councillor. While Glasgow is a large and prominent enough city that its councillors would be deemed to pass WP:NPOL if they were sourced properly, this rests almost entirely on primary sources (birth and marriage registers, and the council's own archived records of its own internal business), with just one piece of actual reliable source coverage shown at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually show a greater volume of media coverage than this, but city councillors do not get an automatic NPOL pass just because they exist -- a city councillor's includability is entirely conditional on her sourceability, and the sources shown here aren't adequate. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable city council member.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ I added routine news coverage of her 1945 electoral campaign..E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete changing my iVote. I was giving her a pass because she's a girl. But she's not a "first" either as a woman or as a Socialist for the Glasgow city council. coverage in a Proquest news archive search is just her name in the long list of candidates standing for... and a list of the poll result. Feel free to ping me if someone finds something substantive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:14, 5 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. WP:SNOW NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Moglica[edit]

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

This mess of an article is self-promotion by a subject who does not meet basic notability criteria nor the criteria at WP:AUTHOR. Despite various attempts to tone down the promotional content added by a large number of COI sockpuppet accounts, the article is still basically a giant advertisement, contravening our policies on what Wikipedia is not. It is written in an unencyclopedic tone, and there are still active accounts adding blatantly promotional content and spamming the talk page. Every one of the subject's supposed "major works" is a red link. I looked one up on on Amazon and it appears to be a self-published work with minimal impact. The few reviews are fake, written with over-the-top praise by reviewers who have ONLY reviewed publications by this guy. Basically this guy is a master of self-promotion through the use of sockpuppet accounts. The references are often self-published, and the few reliable news media links are brief articles expressing surprise that someone wrote a very long poem on Justin Trudeau.

The awards do not appear to be reputable. The "International Society of Poets" and "International Library of Poetry" are associated with Poetry.com, a vanity press. The only Google results for the words "Missionary Albanian Artists Association" or "Albanian Martyrs National Association" is this article – granted, it could be a language issue but the general point is that the awards, if they are awards, are not enough to confer notability. Citobun (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or full protect~~ - The article should be ~~brought up to standards and fully protected and deal with edit requests~~ deleted, looking at the files on Commons, most have been deleted as promotional, even for Commons - Mlpearc (open channel) 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It is sad to see such an open discriminatins againts this author. I don't see why we need to keep the tempates, since at all sice sources clearly support the material as presented in the article. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.240.138 (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note – This IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's got nothing to do with "discrimination". Nobody on here owes him anything, for starters — it's the article's responsibility to meet our inclusion standards, not our responsibility to handwave its problems away just because you allege "discrimination" without substantiating any evidence of that. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I'm not comfortable with calls to delete an article merely for conflicts-of-interest or self-promotion/advertising. Those are not actual grounds for deletion if the subject is demonstrably notable. And then we have this article. I'm going to set aside COI/promotional concerns for a moment. Getting through the fluff, is there an article here, something that fulfills our policy requirements? The closest we can get is the Justin Trudeau poem which received some coverage. Remove that claim for notability and we are left with nothing. As nominator Citobun outlines in their very thorough rationale, the other claims for notability are self-published works reviewed by questionable authors and the awards are also questionable and linked to a vanity press. So that leaves us with the one claim to notability that received some media attention. However, given the lack of any other claim to notability, this would fall squarely under WP:ONEEVENT, and barely that -- the media sources are slim at best. As for the conflict of interest, the self-promotion, the sockpuppetry: taken by themselves they would be a problem but if there was an article that could be otherwise saved, they would not be enough for deletion. That said, given the lack of notability and the publicity campaign by single-purpose accounts who make very few, if any other edits, this lands the article squarely in WP:NOT territory, specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. (I've noticed that if those IPs and accounts do any other editing it involves topics connected to Moglica in some way, such as Cambridge University where Moglica claims to have studied). To put it simply, WP:NOT cannot be satisfied, WP:ONEVENT is applicable, and without that one possible claim to notability the article clearly fails WP:GNG. freshacconci (✉) 20:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's Improve the page Well, I look at a few of the references - and they do look like reliable sources of information to me. I don't understand why some people are using Wikipedia to directly or indirectly spread hate. I don't agree with misuse of powers. How can we improve the article? Best regard.British Spelling — Hot British (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make it better In my view the key here is how to make the page better not to abuse powers. We are all volunteering here. I'm not confortable to go to the extreme. — Hot British (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 22:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Citobun (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is way past time that we have a policy to delete any article the subject creates on themselves. Beyond this, at best this person has one event notability. The coverage says "look, there is this epic poem on Trudeau". The poem may be notable, but that does not automatically make its author notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if necessary salt An enormous vanity piece on a non-notable figure "Since 2010, Moglica has been volunteering for Justin Trudeau and LPC — to bring back in power the Liberal Party of Canada. Moglica has been one of the biggest supporters of Justin Trudeau — " it breathlessly intones. A magnet for sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts, self-puffery and so on. Let's close this - and Moglica - down, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with SALT. I've been involved in dealing with this situation in the past, but I eventually got fed up and washed my hands of it entirely — but it's been clear from the start that this has always been a self-promotion campaign by a writer who feels entitled to have a Wikipedia article for public relations purposes. The only strong notability claim he ever really had makes him a WP:BLP1E at best, and otherwise this keeps getting tarted up with blatant promotional puffery and unreliable sourcing. There simply isn't the substance, or the reliable sourcing, needed to hang a Wikipedia article on. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to delete and we should be respectful and kind to each other. Why are you doing this when someone has tried to edit the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:3D45:ABA6:484F:C9F6 (UTC).[reply]
- Note – This user is a suspected sockpuppet. See investigation here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Improve and/or protect - no need to be disrespectful against the author Hello everyone, I don't know why we need to blame the author here? The fact is that as comments become more disrespectful, we should not forget the say "treat others as you want to be treated". This writer is a published author of many books by many publishers. Let me make it clear: I don't have any connection with the author, but I have read some of his best books. Thus, if a person is making wrong edits, without reaching a consensus, we should not blame this author. The best way, indeed, is help with editing if you can, by beeing respectful. Thank you for understanding. Have a lovely day to all. British Spelling 22:56, 2 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Firstly, you get one "vote" in an AFD discussion, not multiple votes. You can comment as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with another bolded restatement of the "keep" vote you've already given.

Secondly, being "respectful" to an article topic does not mean always we have to keep an article. In actual fact, there are many situations where the most respectful thing we can do is to delete the article — having a Wikipedia article is actually a double-edged sword with much more negative consequences than people always necessarily realize. Our articles can be, and are, quite regularly edited to attack our article subjects, to invade their privacy with unsourced personal information about their sex lives, or to overwrite the whole damn thing with an article about some other person who happens to have the same name or a recipe for raisin bread — and if you think I'm making that up, I'm not, because every one of those things has really happened just within the past few weeks alone. And below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the risk of that happening outweighs our ability to control it — an inappropriate edit to Justin Trudeau will get caught and reverted within minutes, because a lot of people are watching his article, but an inappropriate edit to a minor person of low public visibility can linger in the article for months because nobody has seen it. So below a certain level of established prominence and sourceability, the most "respectful" thing we can do, the best way to protect them from that risk, is to not keep an article at all.

And finally, nobody actually believes your claim that you have no connection to the subject. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hot British's first edits were on Feb. 3 including this article's talk page. That edit was to change the library record information in a link provided by one of the blocked IP addressed linked to Moglica, the same one that had the hilarious conversation all from the one IP address. It seems like a strange edit so soon after registering the account. Hot British has made a higher range of edits aside from the Moglica article, although still limited. However, this editor's use of English is the same as the confirmed socks and IP addresses, not to mention the same type of "concerns" about the article, calling it "disrespectful" or calling for people to be "respectful". freshacconci (✉) 00:54, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, It's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, editors, can find some common grounds by editing the page. Do as you wish! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs) 19:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's find common ground Editors, as an editor, it's so disturbing to read some comments above, when we, volunteers, can find some common grounds by editing the page instead. Do as you wish! British Spelling 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Thanks you for your time.

What does this even mean? What common ground is there to find? An article, written by the subject and maintained by a series of sockpuppets, is up for deletion using some very reasonable criteria. The various sockpuppets speak of "respect" but where is the respect for other editors, who have to spend their volunteer time removing blatantly promotional material? Where's the respect for Wikipedia as a resource? What "common ground" would you have us find? Presumably, by common ground you mean we should leave you alone to do what you wish. Fortunately, Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to regulate its articles. I encourage you to read What Wikipedia is Not. freshacconci (✉) 19:41, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your time and for providing a very helpful link as well.British Spelling 20:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot British (talk • contribs)

Keep it — a page supported with appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:560:3B3:B527:F60:3DE8:AD22 (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it — a page supported with many appropriate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.160.85 (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per the above arguments. Lepricavark (talk) 00:20, 5 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) Kharkiv07 (T) 15:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward- The diary of a hamster[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Unreliable reference(s) were used. XXN, 15:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wellman, Victoria (2013-11-09). "Decades after death, hamster is family's muse". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  But while Edward might have failed as a pet, he did leave what the Elias call “an enduring mark on their collective psyche.” So much so that he’s the force behind the sibling duo’s new graphic novel, “The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990.”
  The book came about after Miriam performed a stage reading of Edward’s “journals” in London in 2011 and attracted a publisher’s attention. It positions the brother-and-sister team as translators and Edward as a disillusioned author who thinks there must be more to life than eating seeds and spinning on his wheel for Ezra and Miriam’s entertainment.
  ...
  But the Edward of the book, is whip-smart and hyperarticulate. He makes wry observations about life, punctuated with lofty existential theories. Of a cat, he writes, “He is just a dumb and senseless brute — he is allowed to roam free, for the bars are locked firmly on his mind.”
2. Hannaham, James (2013-09-04). "Books Fall Picks 2013". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990–1990
  by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia • September 26, Blue Rider Press, 96 pp., $14.95
  Fans of Henri, the existentialist cat of Internet fame, will probably fall even harder for diarist Edward the Hamster's brief, pocket-sized belles lettres. As ill-fated as any pet hamster, the defiant Edward, unlike the others, "will not do tricks." Instead, he desperately seeks connection and meaning before his tiny shade passes through its painfully brief earthly journey. He goes on a 16-minute hunger strike, he contemplates murdering his ignorant cellmate, he ponders freedom and existence. "Death is the final cage," muses Edward. "None shall escape."
3. Hoffert, Barbara (2013-04-01). "Nonfiction Previews, Sept. 2013, the Last Roundup: From Mary Beard to Eileen Rockefeller". Library Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Elia, Miriam & Ezra Elia. The Diary of Edward the Hamster, 1990–1990. Blue Rider: Penguin Group (USA). Sept. 2013. 96p. ISBN 9780399165979. pap. $14.95. HUMOR
  This wicked little book by a sister-and-brother team from Britain features a hamster in existential anguish as he whirls about his wheel: “They can take my freedom, but they will never take my soul.” Billed for fans of Tim Burton and Edward Gorey and actually quite funny, if you like dark.
4. "Thebigread". Coventry Telegraph. 2012-08-25. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Non-fiction THE DIARY OF EDWARD THE HAMSTER 1990-1990 BY MIRIAM ELIA AND ERZA ELIA (BOXTREE, £6.99) A COLLABORATION between brother and sister duo Miriam and Ezra Elia, The Diary Of Edward The Hamster 1990-1990 is an 80-page journal written through the eyes of the titular rodent.
  Described as a "deliciously dark gothic giftbook, for pet lovers and anguished existentialists of all ages", the book is a celebration of the short-lived hamster's life.
  Interspersed with black and white drawings of our furry hero by Ezra Elia, this is a genuinely funny personal diary containing entries such as Edward's thoughts on the meaning of his life, his views towards his owners and his joy when he finally gets a friend to cohabit with, who he then promptly conspires to murder.
  A lovely stocking filler for animal lovers or philosophers alike, this is perfect for those who have ever wondered about the possible inner-workings of a hamster's mind.
5. Clements, Toby (2012-11-24). "Hamsters in love". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  My favourite autobiography this year comes from a hamster. In The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990–1990, edited by Miriam and Ezra Elia (Macmillan, GBP6.99), Edward relates his life story in gnomic, existential entries. May 5 reads: "Why Exist?" May 7: "The vet came today. He touched me. Apparently I am a woman." It does not end on a high note, but his love for Camilla (the other hamster) is heartbreaking.
6. Raymond, Ken (2013-12-08). "Quirky gift books". The Oklahoman. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  “The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990” by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia (Blue Rider Press, 96 pages, in stores)
  This book is perfect for three types of people: pet lovers, fans of dark comedy and angsty existentialists struggling to escape life’s prison. Then again, maybe it’s only good for the first two kinds of people. The third might find it pointless to read a book, even a thin one like this.
  As the title suggests, the book purports to be the diary of a hamster who lived a short and unhappy life locked in a cage, enduring daily torments. He mourns the fact that no one remembers the six-month anniversary of his acceptance into the family, tries to avoid contact with his owners and tries to figure out why he has such a miserable life.
  Edward is nothing if not defiant. ...
7. "Book Notes". Cape Cod Times. 2013-10-06. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Three new books take unorthodox approaches to the usually sober subject of philosophy.
  "The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990" (Blue Rider Press) by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia is the illustrated musings of an unusually gloomy rodent who questions whether his cage is of his own making and goes on a 16-minute hunger strike.
8. Koswan, Susan (2014-01-25). "Translated from the original Hamster". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Welcome to Edward's world, asking the big questions about the meaning of life, love, friendship, captivity and more.
  In 83 short, but intense, illustrated pages, how can you not fall in love with this thoughtful, morose little rodent? Certainly, everyone I shared this book with enjoyed it.
  Miriam Elia, a British artist, and her brother, Ezra, have "translated" Edward's diary "from the original Hamster," drawing from memories of "an unusually gloomy hamster" named Edward they had the privilege to care for, but who has since gone to the great hamster wheel in the sky.
9. Bancroft, Colette (2013-09-22). "Dreamed of in Our Philosophy". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 (Blue Rider Press) by Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia is the illustrated musings of an unusually gloomy rodent who questions whether his cage is of his own making and goes on a 16-minute hunger strike.
10. Mufson, Beckett (2013-10-08). "This Existential Hamster Helps You Contemplate Life". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  Everyone experiences the occasional spiritual crisis, but saying you feel trapped in life can be an understatement when you're literally a hamster in a cage.
  Such is the life of Edward the Hamster, the titular character of Miriam Elia and Ezra Elia's quirky book, The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990. Between boycotting his wheel and going on the occasional hunger strike, Edward experiences the combined existential struggles of Camus, Nietzsche and Sartre.
11. Armitstead, Claire (2015-09-22). "The flyaway success of the Ladybird art prank". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2017-04-02. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  The article notes:
  
  “We set up Dung Beetle Limited as a joke,” she laughs, “and it’s become a corporation with a ‘fulfilment centre’ to send out the books.” By we, she means herself and her older brother, Ezra, who is cited as co-author, and with whom she created a previous hit: The Diary of Edward the Hamster, 1990 to 1990. Their childhood memories of owning a hamster were the basis of this mordant story of an abused pet, which began life as a satire for Radio 4 before becoming a Sony-nominated animation and a book. It is a memorial to the suffering of the only pet the siblings were allowed growing up in north London, when they would really have preferred a dog. “Wednesday May 5: Why exist?” writes Edward. “Wednesday May 7: Two of them came today, dragged me out of my cage and put me in some kind of improvised maze made out of books and old toilet rolls.”
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Cunard has done his thorough work and established notability. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I've moved it to its correct title, The Diary of Edward the Hamster 1990-1990 and de-orphaned it, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh oh, I see from MOS:DASH that an en dash is required here. Fixing the redirect and page move. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've done some further improving. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, plenty of sources that discuss the book, thanks to Cunard for the listing above. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:44, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Dubost[edit]

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

Obvious self promotion (e.g., "update of my CV"), but besides, I'm not finding much of anything source-wise. The language is French, and they work in Australia, so there's not much excuse for not finding really any sources at all. Overall seems to be a mid level government employee of no particular import that I can tell. TimothyJosephWood 14:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:D1AA:6D70:6060:44B9 (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Creator's only edits are to that page, with edit summaries like "update of my CV", as mentioned previously. Definite case of WP:COI and self-promotion. bojo | talk 15:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quick English source check doesn't bring up anything (and if he were notable and in Australia - should be some English sources). Position described doesn't seem notable.Icewhiz (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

عمرئ[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to be an honorific title bestowed by Jamia Darussalam, and only duplicates what little content is already in the main article. The anglicized Oomeri seems to be a fairly common last name as well, and searching for sources is just a rabbit hole of non-English articles of dubious relevance. TimothyJosephWood 12:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:V. And while WP:NOT can be hard to interpret objectively at times, this is pretty clearly against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of WP:GNG Spiderone 07:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How is the term considered prestigious in the whole Muslim world it it's only granted by a single school? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MezzoMezzo's remark about that single school demonstrates the lack of notability. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:22, 6 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 procedural close. Redirected to Pink (singer) by nominator before opening the AfD. If you wish to delete the redirect, please nominate it at WP:RfD instead. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 00:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P!nk Live 2017[edit]

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

Page should not exist, per WP:NTOUR. A string of summer music festivals does not equate to a concert tour by a recording artist. No sources to prove said-tour in-question exists. livelikemusic talk! 12:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Livelikemusic: it appears that the page is already redirected and that you tagged the artist page with an AfD tag. bojo | talk 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Bojo1498: Weird, as I wasn't even on her page when I listed the deletion. livelikemusic talk! 13:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pritam Singh (actor)[edit]

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

The article was deleted less than a year ago for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. I am unconvinced that things have changed. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no major roles or significant coverage. I was the previous nominator and tagged the article for speedy deletion but for whatever reason it was removed; that's wikibureaucracy for you I guess... Opencooper (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still no actual claim to real notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no improvement on previous Spiderone 07:22, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved (film)[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL, no evidence of notability BOVINEBOY2008 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indeed seems to violate WP:CRYSTAL. bojo | talk 13:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: Once the movie begins filming it will become more notable.Vincelord (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This doesn't look to be a movie, but rather a scripted TV series through USA Network. I'm going to move the article to Unsolved (TV series) and I would endorse deleting the (film) redirect and just redirecting this article to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_USA_Network#In_development. It's reasonable enough to list it as in development considering that it's got some press and if/when it comes to series it can be restored. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually moved it to Unsolved (USA Network TV series). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Americas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:00, 7 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ancy Antony[edit]

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

Winner of a minor award, with virtually no presence on any of the search engines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete awards are not significant enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:09, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venant Nkurunziza[edit]

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

Non-notable researcher, claim to be a minister-in-exile is not supported by the ref Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if his role as "minister in exile" could be sourced, being part of an unrecognized government with no power is generally not a sign to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per two above. Claim to be a minister-in-exile is not supported. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. We also almost always delete such shadow cabinet members. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:02, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Siltanen and Partners[edit]

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

A7 was declined with the rationale that: "maybe not "Big Brother" or "Get A Mac" but Apple ads tend to be somewhat iconic". While I agree that Apple ads do tend to get notoriety, I don't think all of them are significant enough to pass A7. However, regardless, searches turned up very little about this ad firm, most of it either listings or WP:ROUTINE coverage. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on an advertising agency. I don't see the relevance of the Apple ad: notability is not inherited from work involving a firm's principal two years before establishing this firm. More relevant could be the firm's work indicated in the brief AdWeek piece, but I am not seeing more than passing mentions, nothing to indicate more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG, SPAM, CORPDEPTH etc Borders on a PROD. South Nashua (talk) 18:26, 5 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Dyble[edit]

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

Was deprodded after the addition of a YouTube link. Other than some trivial mentions and press releases, can't find enough in-depth coverage of this individual to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable PR officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article at first comes off as complete original research. So, in looking for reliable sources I found that there is a lot that mentions him and the companies that he's been with but because notability is not inherited I find that he does not pass for inclusion. - Pmedema (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BLP, WP:NOTABLE. This is Paul (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 06:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:03, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rian Antonelli[edit]

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

Non-notable stand-up comedian and actor. Basic searches for sources did not pull up anything showing that he has received sufficent coverage in reliable sources to show that he passes notability. The creator (whose name implies this might be autobiographical) has been given opportunity to address the concerns but they simply deleted all tags/advice without addressing the concerns, so I am bringing this to a formal deletion discussion. Mabalu (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We just started working on this page today, please give us more time to complete this article on Rian Antonelli. Clearly it isn't complete yet. Things take time, please understand.

Thank you, I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adriano2591 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given this is a new article, I would suggest the article be given time to develop and further references added. Noting the relevant recommendations regarding bringing new articles straight to AfD "Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." Allangdall (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)Allan[reply]

— Allangdall (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - If I may put forth my humble opinion, I believe the page isnt suitable for Wikipedia yet. The page seems to have been directly created without following the advised procedure of making a sandbox article first and then sending it for review. Furthermore, the article is written in an almost-autobiographical way, such as the details of 'early life' that are without any references. An article, howsoever detailed or formally created it may be, requires references to add to its credibility. The "Rainbow Doritos trolling" reference may not be sufficient. If the page-creator and/or contributor is either involved with the person mentioned in the article or the person himself, the best course of action would be to copy the information to your user sandbox and working on it for how ever long you want without the burden of a deadline, keeping in mind a neutral point of view. If you feel like the article is still eligible for staying up, references from reliable sources could be added within the deadline. But as it stands, I'm leaning towards deletion. I say this from personal experience since the first article I created had been deleted too, but it had been a great learning experience for me. Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 12:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In the editor's own words: "We are trying to build his online brand and online presence." I have no objection to this page being userfied or done via a draft or Articles for Creation, but given that the creator has just said pretty explicitly that it is an advertising/promotional page, and that the subject NEEDS his "online brand building up" (paraphrasing), it seems pretty clear that we have a problem article here. Unfortunately, it seems a clear cut case of Too Soon. I will note that I do believe that Adriano2591 has made their edits in good faith, but hasn't really grasped that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, but a record of persons and things whose notability has been proven and established enough that they can be shown to merit a Wikipedia article. Mabalu (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Wikipedia isn't the place to "build [an] online brand and online presence". - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is meant to have articles that have recieved coverage in reliable sources, not to be used as a viehecle to prompt such coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a platform to help emerging entertainers build their "brand and online presence" — passage of a specific notability criterion comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability get to where they need to be, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON at best. It's not "use Wikipedia to help you promote yourself while you try to make it big", it's "make it big and then you'll get a Wikipedia article". Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, we should wait to see if this person can build up their notability before creating an article about them. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This falls well below Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:Entertainer. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:05, 6 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lakes by altitude[edit]

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

Entire article appears to be original research and/or copied directly from www.highestlakes.com [13], a non-verifiable website (or its mirrors). NoGhost (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR. Article topic is likely to encyclopedic so no prejudice to its recreation in future. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 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 speedy deletion (A7). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shubham Singh[edit]

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

Non-notable politician, PRODs and Speedies (as an unsourced BLP) keep being repeatedly removed, but a search for sources does not bring up anything. The name is not uncommon, but when I search with additional keywords (ie, Janta) to try and narrow down I don't find anything. Not sure if it is really speedy-able, hence bringing to discussion. Please be careful when looking for sources, as there are hits for other Shubham Singhs who should not be confused with this person (ie, criminals, gangsters, murderers...) Mabalu (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BASIC GNG and WP:NPOLITICIAN.FITINDIA (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely low level political party operative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article by User:Being2shubham which makes no credible claim to notability: neither passing one's exams nor campaigning for a political party are anything other than mundane and trivial. Fails all biographical notability criteria. CSD A7 is appropriate and should not be impeded by disruptive editing by the article creator (and likely subject). AllyD (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete low level politician lacking rs coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 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. Keep comments have put forward no evidence of notability. Simple claims of notability are insufficient. Kurykh (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Daniel Vladimirovich[edit]

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

CSD-Hoax repeatedly removed by sock/duck farm. Subject does not appear in any of the references provided. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 09:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article shouldn't have even been marked for being deleted on the first place based on wikipedia's guidelines and you should've opened a discussion, instead of marking it for speedy delete. The article has creditable sources and It does not violate any of the wikipedia guidelines. Russian aid (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)— User:Russian aid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I would also refer you to pages of the other survivors of the Romove family, and their resources like Prince Andrew Romanov which is a very good example. These people are notable but because of the conditions and exile there are not a lot of news and articles on them. So I think we should keep their name and legacy alive.Russian aid (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even assuming that the article is accurate, it shows no notability. There is no credible claim to notability, so it probably could be speedied under A7. Beyond this there are no reliable sources. Even more cringe worthy it uses Wikipedia as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Even if it's not a WP:G3 hoax, it's WP:A7 no claims of notability -- notability is literally not inherited -- but it smells like a hoax. Sources don't check out. No explanation for why "Arya Ouskouian" is used or sources found for "Ouskouian"+romanov+"prince", "Nikoo Khosravi"+romanov, etc. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:11, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Do Not Delete He is as notable as any other living Romaoff family member, so if you think he should be on wikipedia then I would argue than we should remove all current princes and princes of the Romanoff family! Also as stated in the article he's a human rights activist which I think is notable and contributive to the society.— User:2600:8802:2101:a000:89de:1809:b838:44a0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:15, 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. Only the delete !votes are grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Kurykh (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Chess Festival[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Unremarkable film festival lacking significant independent coverage. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 19:53, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete: You can delete it if you want, I just thought it was relevant because this Festival is included in the List of most important international festivals of the spanish govern:^[1] Ludolfo (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete: I was journalist and in fact I attended the Hell Chess Festival in two different countries, because this event in 2017 was developed in an international way, Malta and Spain. And it lasted three months what is a remarkable effort. Very good reviews too. As I said, it must be an article included at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibooks (talk • contribs) 16:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG/WP:EVENT. Tried looking for Spanish language sources, too, (though "Hell Chess" seems to be the title across languages, as far as I could see). May just be a matter of it being too soon. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:38, 8 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 redirect to Family of Donald Trump. And merge relevant content from history, subject to consensus. The "keep" opinions tend to be on the weak side here. Sandstein 06:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trump[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG per WP:NOTINHERITED. Same rationale for his wife Blaine Trump. — JFG ^talk 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect - Also considering this is but a stub, if worthy of mention, may be better merged as part of a more general Trump-related article, unless a particular event makes this person directly notable. PaleoNeonate (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reading other comments here, I have changed my vote from "delete" to "redirect" which appears more appropriate. PaleoNeonate (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family of Donald Trump. Probably better because he is Donald Trump's brother and notability is not inherited. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG - subject of dedicated coverage in Town & Country Magazine, New York Magazine, and WKXP, coupled with two more incidental mentions in the New York Times and a Simon & Schuster-published book. Article is a stub, but stub-status does not preclude notability. DarjeelingTea (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep:The independant sources should be enough to pass WP:GNG, regardless of reason.Burning Pillar (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The sibling of a US President is worthy of a page, however it needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees999 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the "Keep" !vote, I would never support inclusion of an article for this reason alone, as per WP:INHERITED. I think the article stands on its own based on its own sources, but we shouldn't include articles on presidential siblings just because they exist. DarjeelingTea (talk) 21:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I object to the Keep from Yankees999, since it claims that notability is inherited, contrary to WP:NOT. Edison (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Family of Donald Trump. It's a borderline case, but ~~two~~ one substantial references for a "notoriously ... publicity-averse" individual ~~aren't~~ isn't enough to support a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for his activities and believe he meets WP:GNG. MB298 (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Admittively, a lot of the sources are titled "Donald Trump's brother" or something similar, but there are enough focused on Robert to barely pass GNG. He probably will always live in the shadow of his brother, but if more sources can be found to expand the career section, that would be helpful.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump: family connections alone aren't enough for a separate article per WP:BIOFAMILY, and he doesn't get much (if any attention) for things outside of being a Trump, but is a plausible search term. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump which is the encyclopedic place for random relatives of a notable person. Edison (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(OP) Redirect to Family of Donald Trump with a brief mention there, using sources from this article. — JFG ^talk 09:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional keep comment:WP:BIOFAMILIY states:"Being related to a notable person in itself confers no degree of notability upon that person. Articles about notable people that mention their family members in passing do not, in themselves, show that a family member is notable." However, there are sources for this article that do NOT just mention this family member in passing:This and this refer to him as brother, but these sources are still about the brother, Robert Trump. And they describe him not in passing, but in detail. I doubt that WP:BIOFAMILY applies as a valid deletion criterion here.Burning Pillar (talk) 09:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG per indepth coverage in WP:RS. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ~~none~~only one of the sources cited (Town & Country) can be considered "in-depth coverage". — JFG ^talk 03:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not require "in-depth coverage", we require significant coverage.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For my education, what exactly is the distinction between those two terms as you see it? And is each quantifiable in some way? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AdventurousSquirrel, I don't know if you were particularly looking for Burning Pillar's view or just a general answer but in case the latter, WP:BASIC and particularly footnote 7 gets at the relationship between significant coverage and depth of coverage, as well as evaluating for depth. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just looking for an answer in general, thank you Innisfree987. But to my understanding, and my reading of the guidelines you linked to, we actually do require coverage of a topic to have substantial depth in order to demonstrate notability. Burning Pillar's comment says we don't require "in-depth coverage", and seems to contrast "significance" and "depth", but as I understand it, they're two facets of the same thing. I.e., there should be significant coverage of adequate depth in order to demonstrate the notability of a topic. The problem with arguing about the relationship between the two words and adhering to it, of course, is that this is all an unquantifiable gray area anyways. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you AdventurousSquirrel: to my reading, the guidelines clearly indicate "depth" is a consideration in assessing "significant coverage"--but where exactly we draw the line is, I suppose, one of the main tasks of developing consensus at AfD. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has about as many google hits as "Roger Clinton Jr." and "Billy Carter". Seems a bit bias to try to extinguish the Trump family this way. --MarsRover (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits do not make notability, and there are many homonyms in a plain Google search. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure neither JFG, nor anyone else, is trying to "extinguish the Trump family". We're discussing deleting an article, not issuing a death sentence. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Trump family article. Subject only appears in brief in sources because of his last name, not for anything he has personally done. ValarianB (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to family article. The article says little of substance besides his relation to Donald Trump and his distaste for publicity.LM2000 (talk) 05:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trump family article, article's subject isn't notable enough to have their own article. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets simplest of standards for notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – Keep !votes range from "Google hits" to "he's related to Trump". Fails WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED. Laurdecl ^talk 06:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Laurdecl, how do the comments of Darjeeling Tea fit into this?--Burning Pillar (talk) 07:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to the Trump family page. In terms of available sourcing: other than the T&C piece, I'm only seeing passing mentions and local coverage. In terms of the actual content, we have a very thin stub, almost half of which is already covered in the Trump family page--moving the couple of remaining sentences to that page is definitely preferable to having a pseudobio. We can certainly revisit if more sourcing becomes available to verify more independently-notable, encyclopedic content for this entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but on condition that it be expanded within the next 30 days to justify that it can be kept. Otherwise merge with Trump family. Mr Tan (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that the purpose AfD serves, to give an allotted amount of time to establish whether there's sourcing sufficient to sustain the entry? Already with the relist, there's been two weeks to find more sourcing, and I'm sure if someone said they had a lead on more research, there'd be no objection to a courtesy third relist (I know I'd be glad to know if there's more sourcing than I could find!), but otherwise it seems to me that WP:CRYSTAL applies--rather than holding out an entry (pseudobio) for hypothetical sources, it seems like the appropriate outcome would be merging with the potential to reexpand if new sourcing is identified. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My impression was the same, the expiration time may be mostly over, unless of course the result is keep. —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 18:15, 6 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 without prejudice to recreation. This is a sufficiently significant subject that I have no doubt that a proper, sourced article could be written about it, but for the time being there is literally no content sourced to secondary sources present in it, and nobody has added any during the time that it has been nominated for deletion. If anybody wants to create such an article, in my view WP:G4 would not apply. Transwiki-ing may be appropriate, but this page doesn't need to stay up for that to do so, since the material is available in hundreds of other locations online. Steve Smith (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867[edit]

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

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

The article should only be a part of the Constitution Act, 1867, if a link to section 92 is required, a link can be made to s:Constitution Act, 1867#92 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested link does not work properly.Raellerby (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the link to Wikisource, works fine for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Valid summary style split of the long list of various powers granted to the provinces from the main article. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Patar knight's reasoning. 70.31.106.119 (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwikify to wikisource. This is an important subject since it defines the "competence of provincial legislatures", but in its present form it is not an encyclopedia article. It might be repurposed and restructured to be such an article, but this is probably covered by Canadian federalism. There is probably only one 1867 Constitution Act, but it would still be useful if the word Canada appeared in the title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a notable topic, then it should be kept and improved. AFD is not cleanup. The article is just a stub needs expansion. If there's only one Constitution Act, 1867, with a s 91/92, then there's no reason to disambiguate it. Adding Canadian to the title and removing Constitution Act, 1867, would be inaccurate because that's not how the various sections are referred to (because of the 1982 Constitutional Act). Article titles should be WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of ... Public domain or other source material such as ... laws ..." WP:NOTREPOSITORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shhhnotsoloud (talk • contribs) 17:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peterkingiron. It looks like wikisource material, not Wikipedia. The only source cited is the Act itself, so as it stands it is nothing but WP:OR. My opinion would change if someone could come up with a journal article or book chapter discussing this Section, but as one of 92 in the Act, I have my doubts as to whether such work exists. (And yes, keep or wikify, it needs to have Canada or Canadian somewhere in the namespace.) Agricolae (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While a little late in the game, I have added a second article created by the same editor at the same time, with identical format and identical problems, dealing with section 91. Agricolae (talk)

Shockingly, whole books have been written on the two sections of the Canadian constitution that define what the federal and provincial governments can and cannot legislate on. This is a massive failure to meet WP:BEFORE. It should've been tagged for expansion, not taken to AFD.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki. There's nothing inherently wrong with this content, it's just not appropriate for wikipedia because it's not an article, in the sense that we use the word. I'm not very familiar with Wikisource, but it seems like the right place for this material to live (subject to people who know Wikisource's charter better than I do confirming that it is indeed appropriate there). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is already at Wikisource, and it's already an article. Each article defines in the lede sentence what the section does, and then provides the content, which includes many useful links to the powers assigned to the federal and provincial governments. The content may be at the stub level, but it is an article, and it is certainly notable. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RoySmith or others. There is no content beyond cut'n'paste of the relevant section, and after 5 years, unlikely that it will appear. See no reason to preemptively transwiki, since the text of the section of the statute can be found elsewhere I assume. Martinp (talk) 01:53, 10 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. Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Shakespeare Company[edit]

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

Non-notable theatre company. No independent references except for reviews on a couple of local blogs, and I couldn't find anything further. Being kind, it's too soon. Boneymau (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 07:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The free publication The Weekly Review had this news item. The rest is just as the nominator says: despite the size of Melbourne and the notability of Shakespeare, I can't seem to find reviews in major media, beyond blogs, at this time. Unfortunately I think it does fail WP:ORG. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NEC Group[edit]

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

The article provides no third-party sources that can be used to verify the notability of the company. No claims of notability are made anywhere in the article. It has had unanswered conflict of interest and advertisement tags since May 2015. I find no evidence of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 07:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have added a couple of references, both relating to the 2015 purchase by Lloyds Development Capital, but these are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. NEC Group is mentioned as an asset on the Lloyds Development Capital page and as the operating company on the National Exhibition Centre page; these seem sufficient in the absence of more detailed coverage of the specific operation firm. AllyD (talk) 08:36, 31 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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries with directional names[edit]

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

Not a notable concept for a list, mere listcruft and indiscriminate trivia, worse still, this is unsourced. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 05:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Agree with nominator. Ajf773 (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR and obvious listcruft. The section headings "Largely unrecognized states" say it all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This point at least is easily defensible. Have you not seen List of states with limited recognition?--Pharos (talk) 11:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. MB 03:46, 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. Reasonable people can differ on the extent of WP:GNG, but consensus here has concluded that the article subject does not met this requirement. Kurykh (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Cravy[edit]

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

Advertorially toned WP:BLP of a single-market television and radio personality, who has a valid potential claim of notability but isn't even at the starting gate for referencing it properly -- every last reference present here is a primary source that cannot assist notability at all: her own website, her own LinkedIn, news content where she's the bylined author and not the subject. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source it properly, but a journalist gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source content created by other people, not by being the author of reliable source content about other things. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jkmarold55 (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you seem like quite the expert Bearcat. Is her listing in the Emmy Awards PDF primary? You did state that "not one of them" isn't primary. This is just one example that you seem ill informed. I will continue to source the claims in this article, but no policies on Wikipedia are dire enough to warrant deletion. Jkmarold55 (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. An award win or nomination has to be sourced to media coverage about the award nominations to count toward notability, not just to the awarding organization's own self-published content. It is, for the record, a regional Emmy nomination and not the national Emmys, so it would count toward notability if it were sourced properly — but the regional Emmys do not hand every nominee an automatic inclusion freebie, or an exemption from having to be sourced properly, just because the word "Emmy" happens to be present in the text. Bearcat (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but it adds notability! Expand on sourcing. Expand on citation. It's easy. This page is barely 2 days old. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one whose responsibility it is to add enough proper sourcing to get the article kept. Not me, not Domdeparis. It doesn't have to be a perfect featured article candidate right off the bat — but it is your job, as the page creator, to ensure that it actually meets a certain specific minimum standard of quality and sourceability right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the nom. I personally tried to clean it up by removing the promotional non notable text and the promotional photos that do not add anything to the article but they were systematically reverted or added again by the page creator or an IP user who I suspect are COI editors. The reference to Reagan is anecdotal and the photo serves simply as a vanity element and suggests a close relationship that is not detailed in the article, but the creator insists on adding it again and again. the photo of the radio team adds nothing to the article and 4 photos on a small BLP is OTT and IMHO contrary to WP:IDD but the creator seems to be on a promotional mission and believes he owns the article. --Domdeparis (talk) 09:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in the market where the subject's main station is and I can confirm that they don't fit WP:N as WP:TVS sees it for local news personalities, and this is pretty much as a WP:RESUME. Honestly there's a high bar for local news personalities to get a page here (length of service, stories broken, appeal in community and outside work, and of course plenty of sourcing that isn't New York Post-like gossip about their existence) and it just is nowhere close to being met here (even though I enjoy the subject's work, but it's more appropriate elsewhere). Nate • (chatter) 10:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to have it toned like an advertisement at all, in reality, this deletion seems to be a personal issue. Classifying yourselves as the sole representations of Wikipedia policy on the website is unjust to writers, and inappropriate. I can easily bring up plenty of other news reporters on this site with less credentials and accomplishments than Cravy, yet they've been up on the site for years. This is not a resume whatsoever. I have no interest in promoting the subject, and there isn't any need for me to do so. I am happy to alter the language in any way you please, but this does not warrant deletion. Domdeparis, it is not your job to remove other sites that don't conform to your own beliefs. Cravy is a published author, accomplished news anchor, and prominent motivational speaker. To see this article deleted because a few people dismissed my hard work as an "advertisement" or "resume" is despicable. I highly recommend a reconsideration and a self-evaluation on your parts. Good day. Jkmarold55 (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, she is an Emmy Award winning journalist. This award isn't given away like hotcakes. If Wikipedia has such a "high standard" for local news anchors, how does this not qualify? Jkmarold55 (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the regional Emmy programs are not equivalent to the national Emmys. Secondly, even a winner of a national Emmy would not be entitled to keep an article that rested entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about her in media, or that had an advertorial lean to the writing tone. Either way, the Emmy would be enough for notability if the article were properly sourced, but is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to be sourced properly. Tone can be fixed, sure, but the sourcing is the make-or-break condition for whether a journalist does or doesn't get an article — the presence of the word "Emmy" in an article does not hand her a special exemption from our reliable sourcing requirements. Bearcat (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet they establish notability. Capitalize on it. Grow the amount of sources. The article is brand new. Why can' you do some research and build on it? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, they count as a notability claim, the necessary proviso being if properly sourced. It's the sourcing that establishes the notability or lack thereof, not the claim. Anybody can claim anything about themselves, including things that are actually outright lies — you'd be surprised, for example, how many self-promoting wannabe musicians try to get themselves over WP:NMUSIC by referring to their single as a hit just because it got played twice on their local radio station's Local Musicians Hour, even though it was never actually a "hit" on any notability-conferring record chart. So regardless of what notability is being claimed, the ability to verify, through reliable sources, that they've gotten a reasonably significant degree of media attention for the accomplishment is what determines whether they get a Wikipedia article for it or not.

And if you're the one who wants the article to be kept, then you're the one with the responsibility to ensure that you're providing enough of the necessary quality of sourcing to get it kept. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That PDF establishes notability for the Emmy point. I sourced it. How much more specific does it need to be? Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be reliable source media coverage about Cravy winning the award, not the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself. If an award's own self-published content about itself were all it took to make an award winner notable, we would have to keep articles about winners of high school poetry contests and local "battle of the bands" competitions — the degree to which media do or don't devote their resources to writing and producing content about the award ceremony and its winners is what determines whether the distinction makes its winners notable or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is policy: "Strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used. Check the deletion policy to see what things are not reasons for deletion. Consider whether you actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted, and use the appropriate mechanism instead of AfD. Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. The pages Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability (web), and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not are frequently cited in deletion discussions. Familiarize yourself with the ones relevant to the article in question. Consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content. Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD." This article does not contain elements that warrant immediate deletion rather, it provides more opportunity to expand. The subject is undoubtedly notable, so why delete the page? Why not expand it and fix sources. Instead of boosting your own egos with very personal deletion reasons (especially in Domdeparis' case, by this point) why not help it expand. You aren't the sole opinions on the planet. Help, don't harm. Jkmarold55 (talk)

Comment I would suggest that rather than trying to turn it into a personal issue yourself and using sarcasm to get your point over it would be better to supply the necessary sources to prove notability. Of the 7 sources provided 2 are self published 3 are affiliated 1 is a subscription only article so even if it is not to be rejected it is difficult to judge how much of the article actually covers the subject and the last is a list of nominees for one of the 20 regional Emmy awards ceremonies. We are a long way from proving notability so even if the article was cleaned up to remove the resume aspect it doesn't pass GNG even if you consider she is "undoubtedly notable". But as you have said you have no vested interest in the subject so if the consensus is that it doesn't pass it's not really a problem. Nobody is classifying themselves as "as the sole representations of Wikipedia policy" but this is a community where everyone can participate in a discussion and give their opinion even if you think this is "unjust" "inappropriate" and "despicable" and that you highly recommend that we should consider a "self-evaluation" on our parts... that's the way Wikipedia works...and one could say you can like it or learn to live with it but getting on your high horse will not change things. Domdeparis (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problems are not the issues in this article. There are issues, and I understand that. What astounds me is this "community's" eagerness to make a deletion instead of making suggestions or improvements. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that apparently every time somebody's actually attempted to make improvements for conformity with our rules, such as toning down some of the promotional bumf, you've simply nixed them and reverted it back to your preferred version. Bearcat (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, first off, and second, I was eager to hear someone else's opinion as well. I can't just go over to some other page and alter it, and then complain when someone reverts it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local TV personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am fixing citation issues, adding better sources, and fixing the article. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to bring up a comment a viewer brought up on the talk page of the main article: "I'm a photojournalist in Wisconsin and worked with Jerry Taff, Contessa Brewer, Trenni Kusnierek, Shaun Robinson and a number of other talented folks that now have their own Wikipedia page. I'm not keen to the Wikipedia process, but what is the difference between those folks and Katrina? She is an amazing talented speaker - here is a link to her giving a speech at the "Women Leading Wisconsin" conference. https://vimeo.com/209634861 - I can provide additional footage of her speaking presentation if needed to keep her page from being deleted. Thank you - Videochic79Videochic79 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)"— Videochic79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Video of her giving a speech does nothing to assist notability. A person must be the subject of reliable source coverage in media to qualify for an article, and no claim of notability ever exempts anybody from that requirement. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I did include articles of which she was the subject, would you retract reconsider deletion? Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on (a) how many of said articles there were (it takes quite a bit more than just one, frex), (b) how substantive they were (you don't seem all that clear on the significant distinction between "coverage about her" and "coverage of other things which happens to mention her in the process"), and (c) the geographic range that they encompassed (evidence that she's known beyond just one local media market would help reduce how many references would actually have to be shown to satisfy condition A). So, long story short? Maybe, maybe not. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I highly recommend you reconsider deletion. I'm willing to work with you to clean up this article. It simply does not deserve it. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix it, and then maybe this will be reconsidered if it's been fixed enough — but given that you seem to think you've already done enough when you haven't even come close, I see no reason to believe that you actually have any understanding of what "fixed enough" would even mean. And Wikipedia does not owe her an article just because she exists, so you need to stop thinking in terms of what the article does or doesn't "deserve" and start thinking in terms of getting the article to an appropriate quality standard. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Haswell is listed as a stub article and contains a lot less notability, sourcing, and content than Cravy's page, yet it has been up for years. Please explain this. Jkmarold55 (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As problematic as that article also is, it does not contain less notability or sourcing than Cravy's page does; it contains the same number of footnotes, and it contains the same base notability claim of having won a regional Emmy. Please also read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS — the fact that there's a bad article about somebody else does not mean this article needs to be kept; it means the other article needs to be cleaned up or deleted too and just hadn't been noticed until you pointed it out. Congratulations on the backfire, though — go look at the article again if you can't guess what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you check my page again. There are more than 15 different citations. This article is sourced all the way through. Also, why delete that page? It is very well sourced, and he is very qualified? Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This pages has been thoroughly sourced. Please check back again. Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkmarold55: Please stop using bold when you reply. On wikipedia talk pages this is considered as WP:shouting and should be avoided as it lessens the impact of what you're saying. Thanks. Domdeparis (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to close the bold quotes. Apologies. Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither page is "very well sourced". Legitimate sourcing for a Wikipedia article is media coverage about the subject — it is not the subject's own staff profile on the website of their own employer, it is not content about other things where the subject is the author, it is not content about other things which simply namechecks the subject's existence, it is not press releases from organizations that the subject is affiliated with, and it is not WP:BLOGS — it is media coverage about the subject, nothing less, and none of the citations present in either article actually meet the required standard. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you go to the references panel, you will find a whole host of articles written about her from outside of her organization. It is about the subject, so what. Wikipedia policy recommends that because this article is well sourced and establishes some notability, it be cleaned or classified as a stub rather than deleted. Deletion is a last resort activity that is ONLY supposed to be reserved for articles with little to no content, citations, or is PLAINLY and OBVIOUSLY a resume. This article is NOT a resume, does NOT use subjective language and DOES contain enough sourcing to not warrant deletion, but still face cleanup and edits. Jkmarold55 (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not a "last resort" activity, and is not "reserved for articles with no citations" — articles with garbage citations can be deleted too, which is what we have here. I don't know how I can make this more clear than I already have, but again, of the 16 citations in this article, exactly two of them count for anything toward demonstrating notability under WP:GNG — those being #9, "Katrina Cravy joins WKLH morning crew" in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and #11, "Katrina Cravy leaving Fox 6 to launch consulting firm" in the Milwaukee Business Journal, and neither of those count for much because they're blurbs. Exactly none of the other sources count for beans, because every last one of them is either (a) not independent of her, (b) not a reliable source, or (c) not about her. This is not the depth or quality of sourcing that it takes to clear GNG. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not every source in the world is going to satisfy you. And who are you to decide if a source is so garbage it should be deleted? If you actually READ the newer sources I posted, you would see that SOME ARE independent of her! Jkmarold55 (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that none of the sources were independent of her (although some aren't, I didn't say they all weren't). But a source can be independent of her and still not suitable or notability-assisting for other reasons, such as being on a blog instead of a real reliable media outlet, or being on a user-generated content site like YouTube or Vimeo, or being a press release. Reliable sources, for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article topic over GNG are (a) media coverage about her, (b) media coverage about her, (c) media coverage about her and/or (d) media coverage about her, and nothing else — and for all your attempts to "improve" the sourcing here, you are not showing improved evidence of media coverage about her.

Also, you're beginning to cross the WP:BLUDGEON line, by just angrily contradicting everything everybody says in this discussion without showing any evidence that you're actually listening to what you're responding to. I've already explained several times above why the sourcing present here is not assisting her notability, and should not have had to point the same issues out yet again just now. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is a general consensus at AfD that being a local television personality does not rise to the level of inclusion on Wikipedia (otherwise every popular TV meteorologist would have a Wikipedia page.) They must be notable and receive coverage beyond what would be routine for their profession, generally, and I don't see that here. The coverage is routine and she doesn't seem to warrant her own article at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 5 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 Redirect to List of the verified oldest men RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest living men[edit]

Duplicate of list of the verified oldest men. Should be deleted. Fish567 (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect as WP:A10. J 947 05:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term, which the other article's title isn't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Dosseto[edit]

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

Not a particularly notable subject Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 7 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) 02:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Switch2Voip[edit]

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

This unreferenced stub does not make a credible claim of significance for corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article merely describes a company going about its business, with no claim to encyclopaedic notability. Nor are my searches finding anything beyond routine announcements and the usual listings. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIRO-FM[edit]

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

Tourist information station which got missed in the recent round of deletion batches, because it wasn't actually filed in Category:Tourist information radio stations in Canada. As with the others, however, it's still a low-power station, broadcasting a format that WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates as non-notable, whose current operational status is unverifiable because this class of stations is now exempt from CRTC licensing -- thus leaving us with no way to determine whether it's still operating or not, or when it went defunct if it's not, or anything else about it beyond a boilerplate statement of existence. And if we can't verify it, we can't keep it. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that CIRO-FM will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, much less to verify whether it is still operating. (It's certainly not independently notable of Osoyoos — the station exists to promote tourism to that British Columbia town — and as with the other, already-deleted TIS articles, even if you could verify the continued operation of CIRO, there just isn't much out there for this article to be anything other than a permastub.) --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:05, 1 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. KaisaL (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMS at Noida[edit]

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

This unreferenced stub makes no claim for notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author blocked as promotional account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 31 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 (✉) 21:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acquittal of Bassam Al Rawi[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. It has shown no lasting notable impact. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - hard to prove lasting impact when it just happened. The reactions/protests/press articles have been popping up about this story in many publications to show WP:GNG, and there is some great national-level coverage, so not your average local assault case [14] [15] [16]. And much like People v. Turner, I would argue it is likely to have a lasting impact on public discourse. Perhaps a renaming would be in order, to draw less attention to Al Rawi and instead bring attention to the case at large (as he wasn't actually proven guilty according to the law, circumstantial evidence aside). Yvarta (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually happened two years ago. The coverage, even though it's national, is routine coverage which is still within WP:NOTNEWS. If it does later have lasting impact, the article can be reinstated. As it is now, it is too soon for an article. SL93 (talk) 02:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is consistent with other acquittal articles on Wikipedia, but unlike many it has been in the news for over two years and made national news for two straight weeks. The case is far from over and will have more content in the coming months. JBignell (talk) 10:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:RAPID applies.~~ Very persuasive sources exist [17], for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It actually doesn't. That refers to something that happened a few days ago. The beginning of this was two years ago. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It was created on March 8 and I nominated it for AfD on March 31. SL93 (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I assumed it was recent. However, WP:RAPID still applies because...

Keep March 7, 2017 Headline: "Crown appeals acquittal in taxi sex assault case where judge said 'drunk can consent'" [18], no wonder womens's groups are all over this case. It's notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly fine with people voting how they see fit, but March 7 was almost a month ago. I don't like people telling me I broke a guideline or policy when I didn't. I still think it's non-notable also, but I'm not the final deciding factor. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the guideline says "days", and you respected that by waitng a month. but with the prosecutor bringing a case, I think we should treat it as a developing story likely to draw ongoing attention.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a gNews search [19] showing extent of recent coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see no reason for deletion. Extensively covered case. lasting notability is at best a matter of magical ball were someone can predict the future.BabbaQ (talk) 17:11, 5 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. Recently the subject of an AFD discussion closed as Keep. Please use WP:DRV if you wish to challenge that closure. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Free Syrian Army[edit]

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

Alhanuty (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article has an unneutral name and is borrowed from reddit syrian civil war

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Use WP:RM instead. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator: please go and read the WP:AfD page as you have not provided valid reasons for deletion. Furthermore, I did some text searches and couldn't find that there was an immediately obvious WP:COPYVIO. If you know exactly what Reddit webpage was copied, please post the link. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/628em1/turkey_euphrates_shield_operation_is_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/5dgofa/how_is_the_tfsa_perceived_in_turkey/

Delete we don't have a page that is called American Syrian Democratic Forces or Russian Syrian Arab Army, Stop turning Wikipedia into an Assadist propaganda tool 3bdulelah (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Nominator: this wouldn't appear to be grounds for deleting the article. As per above, if you think part of the article has been copied, please indicate which part, but even if part of it is copied, that is still not grounds for deleting the *whole* article. The article is written by multiple editors, and referenced to numerous sources that are independant to Reddit (including BBC, Reuters, Aljazeera etc), so it's unlikely the whole thing is copied. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. No valid reason for deletion is given by the nominator or anyone else. The article should probably be merged or deleted, but this is not the way to do it. Biases and lack of neutrality are not enough to justify deletion on their own. Ceosad (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/628em1/turkey_euphrates_shield_operation_is_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/5dgofa/how_is_the_tfsa_perceived_in_turkey/ these articles from reddit prove that they are copied from reddit.Alhanuty (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep That's the name of the organization--Wikipedia isn't saying that the subject is "free". As for copyvios, I ran the article through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and found no copy-and-pasting. If you have an issue with neutrality, please bring it to WP:NPOVN. --Joshualouie711^talk 15:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/628em1/turkey_euphrates_shield_operation_is_over/ https://www.reddit.com/r/syriancivilwar/comments/5dgofa/how_is_the_tfsa_perceived_in_turkey/ these articles from reddit prove that they are copied from reddit.Alhanuty (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC) this is not the name of the group,this is an invention by YPG/SDF Fanboys,the group isn't TFSA,the groups are hawar kilis operation room.Alhanuty (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although Turkey-backed FSA is referenced by several sources, we couldn't find sources that prove "The group is unrelated to the Free Syrian Army." (it's shown as the reason of having this article, but we have a "citation needed" warning for this important claim). It seems the definition and the abbreviation was borrowed from Reddit's language. Kavas (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sources referenced in the article the page indicate that the units (1) operate with the Turkish army, (2)get paid by Turkey, (3)troops are treated in hospitals in Turkey and (4)attack SDF units (a goal of Turkey, rather than most FSA), and (5)while refraining from attacking the Syrian Govt (which the FSA does). They also include a proportion of Turkmen units. They are clearly different to the FSA, they are in fact a proxy force allied with Turkey. For Wikipedia to include them as FSA would be misrepresentative. For instance, if you look at the http://syriancivilwarmap.com/ - they are actually given a different colour(blue) to the FSA units (green), to indicate they are a different force. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In terms of terminology, they are referred to in the media as the "Turkish Backed Free Syrian Army" (12,000 results in Google) or "Turkish Free Syrian Army"</ref> (5000 results in Google).... there are references for both. Reddit tends to use "Turkish Free Syrian Army" or TFSA. Deathlibrarian (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per reasons mentioned above. Applodion (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request should be stopped because the article was keept. --Panam2014 (talk) 10:30, 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.

^ http://www.mecd.gob.es/cultura-mecd/areas-cultura/cine/promocion/festivales-cinematograficos/nacionales/marzo.html

[1] ttp://www.okayafrica.com/video/poe-new-era-nigeria-music/

[2] ttp://www.mtvbase.com/search?q=poe

[3] ttp://africacharts.com/top-50-nigeria-music-videos-2015-07-25/

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Plexus_(Mavin_Records_album

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SEEYLkRNvI

[6] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIqh7KAsvJo

[7] ttp://www.mtvbase.com/news/poe-adore-her-featuring-funbi/uyf7zv

[8] ttp://urban96.fm/musics/poe-x-olamide-who-you-epp/

[9] ttps://fuze.ng/2016/06/20/music-poe-cant-forget/

[10] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr2KZNsQpm0

[11] ttp://www.mecd.gob.es/cultura-mecd/areas-cultura/cine/promocion/festivales-cinematograficos/nacionales/marzo.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]