Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 March 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Swiss Most Beautiful[edit]

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

Was deprodded with the rationale: "Miss Swiss Most Beautiful it's a national event and the page has been review to address your concerns." Although only a couple of primary sources were added. Searches did not turn up the in-depth coverage to show this passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Failed to meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Page (poet)[edit]

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

Article appears to be a CV of a poet who has had some work published and has founded his own small circulation magazine. Apart from the poetrykit.org website the article is cited entirely to primary sources. Apart from this local news article I can't find any independent, reliable coverage about him or his work (it's not helped by there being a more noteworthy novelist with the same name). If an artist had some paintings exhibited it wouldn't confer notability on them, so I don't see how this guy meets WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE or WP:PROF based on publishing some poems. Time for it to go? Sionk (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I confirm Sionk findings. A deep search has only revealed that he has an unfortunately common name. In spite of that difficulty there are no reviews of his published works and I could only find one "peer-reviewed" publication to justify WP:PROF. I don't quite understand how you peer-review a poem. Actually, after just reading it, that poem is pretty profound. But my opinion is moot.—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was a massively pufffed-up article before I removed the twice-listed list of works, the list of poeple he has read his poetry with and the entirely promotional external links section. Now that that is done, there seem to be two sources left. Neither are convincing, and a cursory search turns up little more. does not meet GNG.96.127.243.41 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:00, 11 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. Secondary schools are no longer assumed to be notable. As no evidence of notability has been presented during this discussion - via significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject - this article's subject is deemed to be unfit for inclusion at this time. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gyan Bharti Public School[edit]

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

Fails WP:BRANCH, unclear after quick Google search if this can be remedied. I am assuming it cannot, but I will withdraw if I'm wrong. South Nashua (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. I have no idea how it fails WP:BRANCH since it isn't a branch of anything. Please explain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be a language issue but I cannot find enough English reliable sources to meet GNG. Apparently Odia is the dominant language in the region. Perhaps some Indian editors could check. But as a result of the RfC on secondary school notability, mere proof of existence is no longer sufficient , and I can't find enough references to establish notability. Delete Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability (DEL8) as the available sourcing does not amount to the significant, independent coverage in reliable sources required by NSCHOOLS, the guideline that our recent, widely-attended RFC reaffirmed is the standard we use.
That said, I too am puzzled by the nomination's reference to BRANCH. Furthermore, no lecture intended, but I believe we expect nominators to perform in good faith the search described in BEFORE part D before opening any notability-related deletion discussion. An even more rigorous search ought to be conducted before nominating an article about a school—a responsibility that the close for the RFC emphasized in some detail. Rebb ing 02:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that much of the information has been deleted from the article. If it contained copyright material, maybe that came from a useful reference that could establish notability. It doesn't seem a good practice to reduce an article to a single line and then nominate it for deletion. The implication is that practically the entire article was copyvio. According to policy at WP:CV, the appropriate response is to re-write the page, and if that is not possible to speedy delete. If speedy deletion did not apply, then the article should have been tagged and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. This is intended to allow contributors a week to verify permission for the text or to propose a rewrite. I searched for it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems and it is not listed. I don't see anywhere in the copyvio policy about AfD. Why have policy at all if it's just going to be the Wild West around here? Jack N. Stock (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomi Tatham[edit]

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

Contested PROD but does not meet WP:NBOX Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The article's subject is found to lack the notability required for inclusion in this encyclopedia. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Stone[edit]

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

Orphaned biography of an (apparently) living person. I do not see notability. bender235 (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a publisher of a small time newspaper with no significant indepdent sources. The article however does need to be tagged with a notice that an AfD has been created. I will see if I can do that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought I will not tag the article. Some rules lawyers will then claim it was a creation of an AfD, and if I come across another article in the next 24 hours that needs to be deleted, and nominate it for deletion, they will claim I violated the restriction that has been proposed on my (but evidently not yet ratified, but still under discussion.) Some people act as if restrictions exist before they are ratified. So I will leave it to someone else to tag the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GMA Network (company). NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMA Entertainment TV[edit]

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

One of several spin off articles of the main company, GMA Network (company), they all should be redirected to the parent article, none have enough notability for standalone articles. Will include others in this AfD. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages based on the same rationale:

List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GMA Worldwide is also up for nomination for the same reasons. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you search that up on google. This article already placed there. As the profile has it.Kazaro (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Onel5969, you need to make an AfD entry for each article you are nominating. Do not add a new nomination to an existing AfD. Softlavender (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:MULTIAFD, Softlavender. I created the AfD, then added the related page, as per guidelines. It's also why I didn't add these to the already existing AfD on the article. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the two articles you have so far on this page do not fit WP:MULTIAFD. They are completely different types of articles, completely different subjects, and the arguments for each will be completely different. Moreover, when a person clicks on the notice at the top of List of mergers and acquisitions by GMA Network Inc., they should not be brought to this AfD, which bears little or no resemblance to it. Please do not confuse the issue -- create a separate AfD for what is clearly a separate, distinct, and very different article. Bundling nominations for two very different articles makes the job of the closer very difficult as well. Softlavender (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry, we're simply going to disagree on this. They are clearly related, both (and the other one already at AfD) having to do with the parent company and its subsidiaries, and both suffer from the same malady. Take care. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too don't see anything wrong with what the nominator is doing. They seem related enough for a group nomination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to GMA Network (company) per nom. Doesn't appear to be independently notable, and a search for sources doesn't finy anything that would establish independent notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company); Wikipedia does not need multiple articles on the same company / its subsidiaries. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It shows that this list doesn't fit to the articles info box. Kaponohillen (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, otherwise Redirect to GMA Network (company). -WayKurat (talk) 13:36, 11 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. Disambiguation is determined to be unnecessary. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loretta Lynch (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Clearly a hatnote situation. The second Lynch does not even have an article. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hatnote is quicker and easier for readers, and as this is an unusual name, unlikely a third of this name will pop up soon - even then a double hatnote would work well. Proddable, see WP:2DABS. Boleyn (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a hatnote is not really necessary in this case. Station1 (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and forget the hatnote. If anyone really wants to find the non-notable Loretta Lynch, they can use the search function. — Gorthian (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:47, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to History of Derry City F.C.. This article's subject is found to lack the notability required for a stand-alone article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Wilderness Years (Derry City F.C.)[edit]

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

When History of Derry City F.C. exists, it's perverse to have a stubby, poorly-referenced article about the few years in which Derry weren't playing senior football. In any case, the article is redundant as it duplicates the main history article - most of it as taken up with describing events leading up to Derry leaving the Irish League or alluding to later events after they joined the League of Ireland, rather than actually describing anything about the "wilderness" period. Jellyman (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything that could be said here could easily be included in History of Derry City F.C. so there is no need for a separate article. Dunarc (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary content fork. Number 5 7 13:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unnecessary fork. Fenix down (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article section History of Derry City F.C.#Security concerns during the 'Troubles' (Late 1960s–1985) refers to Main article: The Wilderness Years (Derry City F.C.). As such, isn't this a simple Merge to History of Derry City F.C.? Though it is odd that section is about 3 times the length of this article. Not sure if there is material that should be copied or not. Still, after a decade of this article existing, I'd think that there'd be a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the redirect on two grounds. Firstly I am not sure that it is in any way an official term, even the article itself fails to provide evidence of its widespread use in reliable sources. Secondly, even if it is a widely used term, it is a term referring to the city of Derry not this club itself so I'm not sure to where it should be redirected. I'm not adverse to any properly sourced content being merged with the history article though without leaving a redirect. Fenix down (talk) 07:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely disagree with you - but the article does note that "the wilderness years was a period of time between 1972 and 1985 when the city of Derry, Northern Ireland was without a senior footballing side participating in a senior national league." - so that's referring to the club, not the city. Whether this be accurate or not I don't know, and it should be sourced. And I'm very surprised to easily find a good relatively recent source for that phrase, gosh and another that's almost as good. Didn't expect that. Might meet WP:GNG - certainly seems enough to leave a redirect. Nfitz (talk) 14:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, the phrase "wilderness years" is just a phrase meaning a period of exile, it's not specific to this club and is widely used in the English language (see here for example, it's generic to the point of cliché, so for one club to claim it as an official named period in their history doesn't make sense to me - if you could show the club uses this phrase I could see the need for a redirect but I can't find it used officially anywhere).

This is underlined by your first source which uses the words in the title but does not refer to this phrase at all in the article itself. The second source does, but the fact that it first uses the term "wilderness" in an entirely generic manner in the first instance does not support your argument and the fact that the second usage states this is a term used to describe this period in the club's history only on a local level and in inverted commas, again suggests the exact opposite of notability. The fact that this source is just a blog also weakens your argument.

I don't see anything approaching GNG here, nor do I see the need for a redirect unless the phrase can be seen to be used in anything other than a generic manner. Fenix down (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what I'm arguing - I never expected to find what I found. No, the second one isn't a great source. More research needed I think. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fenix down; the term is generic in the extreme and I don't particularly see the value of a redirect. However, there's little harm in having one if someone thinks it's a good idea... Jellyman (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mergeto History of Derry City F.C. - no reason for a separate article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - as above, no need for a content fork. Giant Snowman 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Seems more productive to mesh the content with the parent article rather than keep as a separate article. While the content is useful and relevant, it would be better if it were to be merged in my opinion. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:50, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Miss Philippines Earth 2015#Placements. Sandstein 07:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Joy Marin[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria specifies, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources ..." Two of the three sources here are merely lists. More will be needed to establish notability. Eddie Blick (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable on the EN wiki.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Philippines Earth 2015 § Placements, where the subject is mentioned. A valid search term per WP:ATD-R. Source searches are demonstrating this to be a WP:BLP1E situation, in terms of coverage in reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just because she joined Miss Philippines Earth 2015 and this not so-known talent show "Tawag Ng Tanghalan" can be a ticket to have her own Wikipidia page. This is purely promotional. Bumbl_loid (talk) 06:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Philippines Earth 2015 § Placements as per North America¹⁰⁰⁰--Richie Campbell (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepedent sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CHBT-FM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. The next set of low power tourist information stations of no reliably sourceable notability. WP:NMEDIA explicitly deprecates this class of radio station as not inherently notable, except in the rare instance that it actually passes WP:GNG. We formerly had a practice of exempting Canadian TIS stations from getting deleted on that basis, because they had to possess CRTC licenses just like any other radio station and were thus sourceable to at least some of the same types of sources that we permit in other radio station articles -- but as of 2013, the CRTC revised its policies and TIS stations are now exempt from having to have licenses at all anymore. As a result, it is no longer verifiable whether any of these stations is still operational or not: reliable media sources don't cover them and the CRTC doesn't have to issue license renewals, so we have no way to determine whether any of these is still operating, if it went defunct then when or why, or anything else about it. And if we can't verify it anymore, then we can't keep it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above, and poorness of articles. WHATWIKIPEDIAISNOT is a list of tiny radio stations with 30 words each. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:29, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all; there's no presumption of notability for tourist information stations, licensed or not, and it seems unlikely that any of these stations will ever attain the coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline (much less be independently notable of the cities, towns, airports, or ferries these stations exist to serve), much less to verify whether they are still operating. (Even then, would there be enough to get any of these articles out of the permastub category all of these TIS station articles more-or-less fall under?). --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have replaced two extra mentions of CHBT-FM in the list of articles nominated in this AfD with the apparently-intended CHQI-FM and CHYP-FM. Apologies if this is somehow doing something wrong. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Democratic Training Committee[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BROCHURE South Nashua (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom BobLaRouche (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH AusLondonder (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to improve the article but couldn't. There aren't any decent secondary sources.Imalawyer (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:PROMO.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:50, 11 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. Based on Cowlibob's sources. The present stub is sufficient as a basis for later expansion. Sandstein 07:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Jaffe[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NACTOR (tangentially related to NACTOR, that's probably the closest specific notability guideline) Being mentioned at the Oscars on its own isn't enough. South Nashua (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NACTOR and GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 16:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article is poor in representing her notability. As a publicist she is unlikely to have appeared much in the media talking about herself. When she died, Jaffe got an article in The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Deadline. [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. She was named as a top publicist in this 1991 article Entertainment Weekly article [[4]], and this 1991 Los Angeles Times article [[5]]. After her PR time she also became the head of marketing for all domestic films for 20th Century Fox. The New York Observer back when it was a broadsheet wrote an article on her [[6]]. I think there is enough evidence that she was a prominent publicist/ marketing figure within Hollywood so should be notable for an article. Cowlibob (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks, Cowli. I'm not an expert in this area, so I appreciate your insight here. If you can clean this article up, I'll withdraw my nomination. South Nashua (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources Cowlibob provided are quite adequate for her to warrant an article Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete There is probably a lot to be done on this article, I wish people would learn to write it completely in their sandbox before releasing a stub. I think it should be deleted for now, and try again when someone takes the time to do it right. Once the article is fleshed out, then we will be in a better position to judge. Cowlibob if you have the sources then please add them in.Sgerbic (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Galich[edit]

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

Fails GNG, notability has been in question for several months, unclear if GNG can ever be passed. South Nashua (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did your WP:BEFORE work include clicking on the link to look at the Spanish-language Wikipedia article? It's well-referenced. I was able to rather easily find this English-language book ref, which devotes a chapter to him. Anyway, as the Spanish Wikipedia article clearly states, he appears to be a notable Guatemalan playwright, academic, political figure... who then went on to pursue academic work in Cuba as well. The current state of our English article is very poor but the subject is notable. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask the nominator if he'd consider withdrawing this: despite the current state of the article, he seems manifestly notable per es:Manuel Galich, which also indicates that was the country's minister of education for a time, therefore meeting WP:POLITICIAN, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google scholar finds works apparently about him including
- "Las ideas políticas en el teatro de Manuel Galich", MA Carrera - 1982 - Univ. de San Carlos de Guatemala
- "Manuel Galich: La identidad del teatro latinoamericano", EM Daconte - Latin American Theatre Review, 1984, http://jbi.nhm.ku.edu/index.php/latr/article/download/557/532
- "Entrevista con Manuel Galich: Creación colectiva: un teatro necesario y urgente", C Espinosa Domínguez - El teatro latinoamericano de creación colectiva. …, 1978
- "Manuel Galich (1913-1984)", P Bravo-Elizondo - Latin American Theatre Review, 1984, https://jbi.nhm.ku.edu/index.php/latr/article/view/566
- "Manuel Galich bajo el manto del Alma Máter", M CONCEPCIÓN PÉREZ - Universidad de La Habana, 2016, http://scielo.sld.cu/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0253-92762016000100013
- "Manuel Galich: entre la historia y el teatro latinoamericanos", IP Gutiérrez - Conjunto, 1999 , https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2425280
- "Manuel Galich: dramaturgo olvidado guatemalteco", CH Monsanto - XVII Congreso del Instituto Internacional de …, 1978, https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3002687
- "De el canciller Cadejo hacia operación Perico: la transición ideológica de Manuel Galich", JC Lemus Hernández - 2013, http://www.repositorio.usac.edu.gt/id/eprint/697
- "La représentation de la réalité guatémaltèque (1931-1944 à travers" El canciller cadejo" et" Papa natas" de Manuel Galich", KA Moundounga - 1998 - Université de Perpignan

Sources don't need to be in English, so this gives a clear pass of WP:GNG (as well as WP:POLITICIAN as noted by Shawn above). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shawn in Montreal. --Enos733 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even when there is not a "expand Spanish" tag, editors must look at the interwiki original article before initiating AfD. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous points.--SouthernNights (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shawn in Montreal. Lepricavark (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree, plenty of coverage for GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As concerns notability, but apparently a move to Gwardia Katowice is in order. That's an editorial matter. Sandstein 07:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Policyjny Klub Sportowy Katowice[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:NCLUB. Google search yields results but with few reliable sources. Corresponding article on Polish Wikipedia is unreferenced. DrStrauss talk 14:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'll ping User:Tymek who is interested in history of Polish footoball. PS. I tried looking for sources myself, both under this name and under 'Gwardia Katowice' but cannot find anything. It existed, but other than that... I don't know if it counts for notability, but Olympic fencer Antoni Sobik was the club member while competing in the '36 Olympics (he was also a winner of numerous Polish fencing national championships). But whether his achievements translate into the club's notability, since generally notability is not inherited, I am not sure. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS. WP:NCLUB is not an official policy or guideline. No real coverage in reliable sources. The article is also unreferenced since October 2006. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 15:43, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Move to Gwardia Katowice. The article appears under a wrong name to begin with. The proper name is (or should be) Gwardia Katowice. Wikipedia article ought to read: Gwardia Katowice was formed in 1924 originally under the name of Policyjny Klub Sportowy Katowice which was changed into the current name in 1949. Poeticbent talk 05:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Once we change the improper name into the proper one ... only than the sources begin to appear:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Gwardia+Katowice%22
https://www.google.ca/search?tbs=bks:1&q=%22Gwardia+Katowice%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=YZi_WO2yIsyqjwON44PoAg
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22Gwardia+Katowice%22&tbm=nws&gws_rd=cr&ei=XJi_WJamKZKqjwO03aSgBw
https://cse.google.ca/cse?hl=en&cx=007734830908295939403:galkqgoksq0&cof=FORID:13%3BAH:left%3BCX:Wikipedia%2520Reference%2520Search&q=%22Gwardia+Katowice%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=0Zi_WL6nAcOUjwPo0aPoAQ#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%22Gwardia%20Katowice%22&gsc.page=1
https://www.google.ca/search?safe=off&tbm=isch&tbs=sur:fmc&q=%22Gwardia+Katowice%22+-site:wikipedia.org+-site:wikimedia.org&gws_rd=cr&ei=x5i_WKijMMXWjwPlubPwDA

Weak Keep - Move page - as suggested by Poeticbent the page should be moved to the correct title. But would still be a weak keep because of the lack of strong sources. Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 22:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus and Poeticbent that you change your comment to a move request, just so that we can correct the page title and then go on from there to improve the page / AfD. I'm just trying to establish consensus, otherwise the AfD will re-list. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 23:35, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Ormsby[edit]

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

BLP Article with no sources. I proded this a coupla weeks ago for same reason, with expectation that sources would be made good, but still not fixed. If there was real sources available, they would be in already. Fail WP:BIO and subsequently WP:GNG. BLP process is much stricter. If no sources, no article. scope_creep (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:NRU or WP:ANYBIO. Does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. No secondary sources available. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If he did indeed play for Waikato then he may meet WP:GNG or WP:NRU. However I havn't been able to find anything online about him. Could this be a hoax? I'd be suprised that putting "Jared Ormsby rugby" into google doesn't bring up more for a former NZ U20 player. I'm guessing this person was no such thing. -- Shudde ^talk 18:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like Shudde I can't find any sources for him and am now suspicious about the authenticity of the article. If he has played internationally for the under-20s, at NPC level for Waikato and been signed by a Super Rugby team, then surely there should be something out there. Mattlore (talk) 21:28, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Having again attempted to discover any references placing Jared Ormsby and rugby in the same timezone (let alone him having played for a not-insignificant team) and having failed to find them; the more I tend to agree with Shudde & Mattlore that this is likely a hoax. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable rugby union footballer.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

220-234 Middle Road[edit]

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

Non-notable row of twelve houses / shops. Fails WP:GEOFEAT. A WP:BEFORE serach of Google, GNews, and books suggests no notability at all; fails WP:GNG. And that's excluding the WP:NOTESSAY, WP:OR, and WP:BLOATED... — O Fortuna!^{Imperatrix mundi.} 12:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GEOFEAT, non notable row of houses. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. South Nashua (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. --WikiHelper1 (talk) 20:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable and fails of WP:GEOFEAT. Ajf773 (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable. --203.175.67.197 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I live near a Middle Road, is that notable? Nördic Nightfury 09:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Middle Road, Singapore is a notable road and I would have usually urged a merge. But unfortunately quite a bit of the content is a personal reflection, with WP:OR and reads like an essay. I think this can be safely deleted. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:39, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Klein (soldier)[edit]

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

Full of WP:OR and fails WP:SOLDIER. If the outcome is delete, Hans Klein (German Gefreiter) is a redirect which will also need deleting. DrStrauss talk 12:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is perhaps notable, but the entry is not done properly as per Wikipedia guidelines.TH1980 (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no notability, under SOLDIER or othewise. The text quite likely copied from somewhere: "We prisoners were forced to watch those films. We didn’t want to see them, because we didn’t want to believe it." etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable; WP:OR applies and poorly written. Kierzek (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see notability, and the page seems to admit OR; wikipedia is perhaps the wrong place for this. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There will be a lot of these over the next few years as oral historians attempt to debrief as many veterans of WWII as possible before they're all gone. Doesn't make them notable though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiphopkarma[edit]

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

Largely unreferenced, and no demonstration of notability. Quasar G. (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSICBIO for lack of available reliable sources.- Mr X 12:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per concerns over notability and self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armands Strazds[edit]

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

Does not meet any criterion of WP:BIO. Autobiography (the username Suranadira of the creator and main contributor of the page, is the first word of the title of the main article by the subject).

Apparently this is the third AfD, the first one resulted into a delete, and the second one, closed by a non-admin, resulted in a keep. D.Lazard (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Mr. Lazard has problems of his own: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Daniel_Lazard Just saying:) Suranadira (talk) 13:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but then he's actually notable. Just sayin'. E Eng 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I am happy for him. Suranadira (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, consider carefully before answering: are you denying that you are Armands Strazds? E Eng 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, thanks for the compliment! I wish I were Armands Strazds, who doesn't?! But then, I am quite happy to be who I am. Suranadira (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, please learn to indent your posts properly. So how do you explain [7]? E Eng 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, I much liked the book, and the username was available. Suranadira (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I believe that. E Eng 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suranadira, "thanks for the compliemnt..." is one of the most artfully evasive answers I've ever seen. I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet a lawyer would appreciate it as a ~~piece of~~ work of art. And I've seen EEngs history of contention on his Talk page. Nonetheless, please, "yes" or "no". Tapered (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually not the right question. Editors here are not required to divulge their identities. The right question is whether Suranadira has a conflict of interest with this subject. Editors here are required to divulge their conflicts of interest. So, Suranadira, do you have one, yes or no? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, and since I use a pseudonym, my bad. Tapered (talk) 04:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein No, I don't do COI editing. In particular, I have no interest, financial or otherwise, in promoting, whitewashing, or selling anything concerning or related to Armands Strazds person or work. Suranadira (talk) 23:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And for everybody else: being singularly focused on the subject of this article does not necessarily imply being the subject, nor having a conflict of interest with the subject, so I see no reason not to take Suranadira at their word on this. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't the focus, it was this. E Eng 00:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since we can assume the subject, who's written his own article, has put his best foot forward, this is a clear delete, since all the refs are either non-independent, or passing mentions. 'Upon some of Cato's friends expressing their surprise, that while many persons without merit or reputation had statues, he had none, he answered, "I had much rather it should be asked why the people have not erected a statue to Cato, than why they have."' – Encyclopaedia Britannica (1797) E Eng 17:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Check out the influences! [8][reply]

@EEng: Wikipedia is a practical source of information, not a status symbol. If you have a status (like Armands Strazds), you don't need status symbols. Suranadira (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess he doesn't need an article. And please learn to indent your posts properly. E Eng 09:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only real source is the Latvian Musical Information Center bio. That's not enough for WP:GNG, WP:MUSICIAN, or WP:ACADEMIC. See also two closely related AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta numerals.—David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already discussed on the other afds. Blythwood (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. I see no case for WP:GNG. This is just self-promotion.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability per other cases.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has 3 (apparently independent) Latvian bios/interviews, an article about his failed political run, and various mentions in other places, which seems like enough for WP:GNG. There are apparently big NPOV issues (that should be tagged/fixed), but AfD is a decision between "an extremely biased article with verifiable sources" and "no article at all"... --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 21:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are never independent. Can you list, here, the specific sources you're talking about? E Eng 23:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathnerd314159: second request. E Eng 09:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three bullet points at the end of [9]. So in particular [10] [11] [12]. I guess the first two are from the same site, but still... --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first item is a straight (and very short) CV obviously supplied by the subject. The second and third are interviews, and interviews have zero notability value. E Eng 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zero? See Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability. #2 is at least prepared, although they are pretty softball questions and the interviewer is a fellow musician. #3 is probably the strongest, actual reporter [13] and some research etc., in an (imprint of) a national newspaper. Plus some new sources: he's #23 in this list of Latvian bands, and has his own Mime type registration. So if nothing else he's notable under Wikipedia:Notability (software) for being recognized by IANA as part of computer history... :-) --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 05:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. I should have said "epsilon notability value". E Eng 05:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in the previous AFD numerous references were provided (to the point the AFD was withdrawn). Between those and what Mathnerd has pointed out, GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete our sources for inclusion were much laxer in 2008, and it was sometimes wrongly thought that interviews could add towards GNG. We have since then come to understand that especially for living people we need to have a higher bar of notability to have any chance of the project ever being considered reliable. Strazds does not pass our current notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the sources are in Latvian, I cannot tell if any of the sources are articles about him. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The info links at the top of the page yield almost zero, so this polymath hasn't had much overt impact on the English speaking world = no WP:N. None of the references in the article come back as reliable, dedicated, secondary sources. And it's fun to ask for a delete on this since some of the article's editors have disguised other Wikipedia articles as outside sources. A polymath with no notoriety in the English speaking world. Delete. Tapered (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources I've examined (thanks to a popular, search engine-based machine translation service) are passing mentions. The GNG isn't met - there has to be Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources and that just isn't there. As a side note, the pretence that the page creator isn't the subject of the article is beyond a joke. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreeing with everyone above, this is unnotable. —JJ Be rs 04:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Original AfD was delete, but then it wasn't? REFUND? AfD 2 had only 4 votes.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 15:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closure by "delete" of the original AfD was on 28 June 2006, and the article has been re-created on 16 December 2006‎ by Suranadira, who was, under the account Turdus, the main opponent to the 2006 deletion (see [14] for this change of username). D.Lazard (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Turdus"? How... euphonic. E Eng 16:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Using GS cites as a proxy for academic notability, the subject has an h-index of 2.5, which is lower than many graduate students. It is observed that there are sources in Latvian, but given the worrying COI in this case, I do not think these sources should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is extremely unlikely that an academic with such a low h-index is notable under GNG. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nowhere near enough for notability, either academically or in his other activities.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete even if this subject was notable based on independent, reliable sources, this article would require a complete rewrite to meet NPOV and BLP, so WP:TNT applies. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews and passing mentions only, article propped up by the subject or associates. TheValeyard (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 13 chuck 3 keep= no consensus. I am reconsidering my vote per Mathnerds comments. I suggest ~~non-admin closure;~~ result no consensus, and leave it for another 6 months.L3X1 (distant write) 16:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think most editors experienced in AfD know this already, but as a long and contentious discussion, with possibly earlier discussions to consider, it should be left for an admin to close. It is not among the appropriate closures for a NAC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is based on the strength of arguments offered, not numbers. Three people who think a CV and two obviously staged "interviews" meet GNG don't outweigh 13 who see through that. And even if numbers counted, 13-to-3 is overwhelming. E Eng 17:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Nfitz and Mathnerd dunno what they're talking about? Also Blythewood, JJbers, and my votes would go under the tally, not towards a consensus. I have no idea why NAC went through my ehad to my fingers, but it is certainly a bad idea. L3X1 (distant write) 18:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus to delete. A non-admin closure of no consensus would be disruptive. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support there being a consensus to delete, looking at the most well-developed comments. Blythwood (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

Delta numerals[edit]

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

WP:OR based on a single source, which is not reliably published nor cited in any secondary source. This is also WP:COI, as the username of the article's author is the first word of the title of the source (Suranadira). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rational numerals, for a related article also nominated for deletion D.Lazard (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yes, also fails WP:MADEUP. The Armands Strazds article doesn't look too notable either. Blythwood (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily delete - possible WP:CSD#A11. DrStrauss talk 13:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Not sure which existing topic as per WP:CSD#A10 do you have in mind. Suranadira (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Suranadira: fat finger, meant A11! DrStrauss talk 14:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Of course it is "invented"! All mathematical truths are invented – by God, or nature, or whatever. Suranadira (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although OEIS is to my mind reliable as a source, it's not by itself worth much for notability, and doesn't source the use of these numbers for a numeral system. Other than that we have only a self-published work. So this fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (numbers). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thanks for the suggestion about WP:Notability (numbers)! Will try to rewrite the WP Delta Numerals article for the MathWorld and PlanetMath. Suranadira (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding your spam there will not change my mind about whether it is notable here. See also another AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armands Strazds (3rd nomination). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"You are welcome" would suffice. Suranadira (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only independent source is OEIS, which is not enough to show notability. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. ~~And, if I am interpreting the notation correctly (nonn) OEIS doesn't consider it a notable sequence either.~~ (Sorry about that) --Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'nonn' keyword means an OEIS sequence containing no negative terms. Suranadira (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 'nice' keyword (or rather, here, its absence) is how OEIS distinguishes interesting sequences from the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For less interesting sequences OEIS uses the keyword 'less', and for sequences that may be deleted later at the discretion of the editor 'probation'. Neither is the case here. Suranadira (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blank and redirect: Not particularly notable, but it can redirect to Armands Strazds‎. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the related AfDs, don't Bludgeon by disputing everyones vote here, Suranadira. Unless of course you work for Snuggums. In that case, go ahead.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Bill Cherowitzo I wasn't disputing the vote, just helping out with some OEIS-speak. Suranadira (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Armands Strazds. No independent evidence of notability. I don't see anything to be merged, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Comes very close to WP:A11 and there's no merger target that has any legitimacy (the creator's article needs the TNT treatment). Exemplo347 (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOAPEngine[edit]

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

Although several hits exist online for "SOAPEngine", most appear to be passing mentions or a possibly unrelated computing concept called "SOAP engine". I'm not very familiar with programming clients but what I could find are mostly tutorials or tech questions in forums; no reliable coverage specifically about "SOAPEngines" could be found. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modi Aane Wala Hai[edit]

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

Every election quite a few political parties release campaign songs. A single song does not warrant an article. This in particular does not satisfy WP:NSINGLE ChunnuBhai (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should probably be mentioned in Campaigning in the Indian general election, 2014 but I can't see it being worthy of a separate article. Number 5 7 13:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast Engineering Consultants India[edit]

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

Not every enterprise owned by the Indian Government is notable , and there's no evidence that this one is. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- cited to primary sources & no indications of notability or significance for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menemen-İzmir bus[edit]

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

Delete. non notable local bus route. noq (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Read first sentence of said article again. Two of three lines mentioned there share exact same route but operate under completely different statutes. This alone is worth mentioning that route in an encyclopedia. In addition, this is the most popular of İzmir bus routes and one of the most well-known city bus routes in Turkey. I will add more in hours. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.This is the route mentioned.(Source in Turkish) Erkinalp9035 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.London buses has >1200 routes, and about 100 of them mentioned in Wikipedia in their individual articles, with a similar notability criterion, I can count at least 12 routes in İzmir. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference. For London buses, there are lots of reliable sources available, including books and websites to help establish a route's notability. Also, London is a capital city, so it increases their significance in a way, Izmir is not. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bus routes are not inherently notable and there is no evidence of this one being so. Ajf773 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They may be. Bus routes, like other transport means, are traffic corridors and affect others considerably if overused. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whilst I'd choose to keep most articles about bus routes, there are not many sources available that can establish notability for this one, I'm afraid. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 04:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erkinalp9035, would you have any more sources from Turkish newspapers/periodicals? Perhaps something that covers the routes in detail? czar 04:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Invasion[edit]

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

Not my field, but this seems to be to be a non-notable development team. None of the other teams in the league have articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per failing GNG. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

442oons[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG TheMagikCow (talk) 07:59, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, just needs to be expanded, per these sources: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21], These sources include TalkSport and Metro and all cover the subject in decent detail. I might expand it today. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has now been improved. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 08:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It barely squeaks by with the coverage from Gazzette Live and Tube Filter. The other references in the article (particularly the Google search) don't really do anything for notability, in my view. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as of sources presented. --203.175.67.197 (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- sources are borderline, seems a bit WP:TOOSOON. However, it's not particularly objectionable, so I recommend leaving well enough alone. Insert CleverPhrase Here 19:52, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Systems development life cycle. Mergers are cheap. (non-admin closure) J 947 05:16, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

System lifecycle[edit]

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

Non-notable subject (only one real google scholar result), article reads like a presentation, but moreover it's almost completely technical jargon. Pishcal (talk) 03:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Systems development life cycle. Unfortunately, this article was created very early on and has continued since, with one major expansion, in parallel with the canonically named SDLC article. --pmj (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Gangster Blackface[edit]

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

This unreleased film does not satisfy film notability because no independent sources can be found about its production, and is otherwise WP:TOOSOON. Google search turns up the obvious IMDB hits and nothing to provide notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFILM. I can find no info about it except on IMDb. As we know they are unreliable. They say it is coming out this month and the WikiP article says it is coming out next month. You would think there would be another mention of it somewhere if this was the case. MarnetteD|Talk 03:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of programs broadcast by UniMás. Redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) J 947 05:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asi es la Vida[edit]

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

It doesn't appear notable, and fails the basic requirements for a wikipedia article. Bel-Shamharoth (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This is puzzling. There is a similar program listed for Venevision. I suggest redirecting to List of programs broadcast by UniMás, even though the broadcast time frame is different. TeleFutura is an older name for Univision/UniMas, so that part matches, and the external link matches the newer dates. Unscintillating (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eska Music Awards. There is consensus. (non-admin closure) J 947 08:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Eska Music Awards[edit]

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

Non notable radio station award in Poland. Can't see how the award, nor indeed the station are special in the least way. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ouro (blah blah) 05:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't have an opinion yet as to whether the article should basically be merged to the general Eska Music Awards article (stubby as it is), or kept, but the award itself is notable in Poland and has been around for over a decade now. Haven't checked GNG or ORG with respect to it, this is just a general note. --Ouro (blah blah) 05:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eska Music Awards. The parent article is certainly notable judging from a search for sources and from looking at pl:Eska Music Award. Plwiki has Osobny artykuł: links to multiple YEAR Eska Music Award articles. That could be reasonable on Enwiki if someone want to work on it, but here and now a merge to the parent article seems sensible per WP:ATD-M. — Sam Sailor 19:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge --203.175.67.197 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Eska Music Awards. Most of the coverage seems to be limited to the radio station that sponsors it. The award is probably notable, but we don't need separate article for each year. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Scher[edit]

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

Mostly uncited vanity article about someone who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It can be improved I thinkJacob20162016 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article's creator, whose username indicates that there is a close affiliation, has also created an article about his gaming team which originally contained a lot of exaggerated praise and promotional text. I found that the same user had actually inserted factual errors into other Wikipedia articles to make it look as if his team had won a couple of championship titles. Searching for strings in David Scher, it becomes apparent that the article is largely a copy of other Wikipedia articles such as OpTic Gaming, with some names changed. I would in fact recommend a speedy delete as A7/hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 13:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fixed it, by removing the parts that were a blatant hoax. --bonadea contributions talk 13:20, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vanity. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was eligible for WP:BLPPROD and probably could be speedied too. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 15:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete - quite sneaky of creator to do that. Fails CSD#A7 and CSD#A11. DrStrauss talk 18:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went back to see the old version before Bonadea's removal of info and the article's previous 2 sources didn't even cover the subject. This is clearly a vanity article and the cherry on top was the use of <big> tags used to blow up the lede. No offense intended to the author/subject of the article, but I find no coverage of the subject in any RSes. -Thibbs (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is fairly clear that these subpages fail WP:SUB as well as WP:NOTSTATS, and that the individual events are not covered in the parent article. I note that they also pretty much duplicate the external link that they are sourced from, which is copyrighted, so they may also be dubious on those grounds. If any editor would like the content userfying for use in an article that does not have these problems, please contact me or post at WP:REFUND linking to this AfD. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Alpine Skiing World Cup/Men's Alpine Combined[edit]

WP:SUB explicitly disallows "using subpages for permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia". As it stands right now, this page is just a list of statistics, which also goes against WP:NOTSTAT. The individual sub events are not specifically discussed in the parent article, either, only a summary of the Alpine Skiing World Cup as a whole. — Train2104 (t • c) 01:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom sums it up pretty well, with the added note that...I thought this was supposed to be disabled by the software. TimothyJosephWood 14:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The software disables subpages in mainspace, but all that means is that the entire pagename is treated as the title. There's no way for a computer to distinguish between a case like this and a case like OS and OS/2. — Train2104 (t • c) 14:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for WP:NOTSTATS and a breach of WP:SUB. Ajf773 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP of course! Almost all sport pages have sub-pages. Why not trying to improve the pages instead of destroying? Doma-w (talk) 18:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these articles helpful in finding out how the season has progressed. There's definitely a place in Wikipedia for maintaining a record that includes results for events in each season. When one reads WP:NOTSTATS, the solution is to add to the tables to include text that has a narrative that describes the season, not to purge the useful content. WP:NOTSTATS doesn't seem to me to be an admonish that this content should purge from Wikipedia, but a guide as to how to present it. It's a "this is how it's kept" policy, not "delete all of this" policy. The second-best choice would be to merge the tables into articles that would preserve the information on Wikipedia, but place them in a combined context. Delete is a much worse choice than either of those alternatives. --JamesAM (talk) 20:05, 11 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.