Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 December	2 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cashel Palace Hotel[edit]

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

unnotable and lacking sources Dlabtot (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic has had extensive in-depth coverage from national sources like the Irish Times, Irish Examiner and the Irish Independent, the latter of which calls it, "synonymous with Co. Tipperary and its renowned bloodstock industry" and the first calls it "architecturally important." [1][2][3][4]. These were found in a few seconds. Was WP:BEFORE followed? Lacking sources is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a serious nomination? A restaurant once awarded a Michelin star two years in a row with all ensuing publicity in the pré-internet era. The Banner talk 05:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not the best written article, but clearly makes a claim to notability. There is no notability guideline for restaurants but if we had one, it seems logical that a prior award of a Michelin star (as supported by article references) would make the cut. A Train^talk 15:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Michelin star is enough for notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:N per available sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:41, 8 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Yamazaki[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to online directories, interviews, commercial websites, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:NACTOR, or WP:MUSICBIO. No significant awards or notable contributions to the genre. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. I am happy to be corrected by a Japanese reader but none of the article's sources appear reliable to me. Nota bene for anybody attempting to assess these sources at the office or on the couch next to a spouse: Attackers.net is a porn website. You're welcome. A Train^talk 15:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This misses the mark on several guidelines: WP:GNG, WP:OR, and WP:BLP are all three problematic. The WP:LINKROT in the external references and therefore verifiable credibility are reason enough to call this article into question. I don't see a larger firm that this particular entry could be Merged under. Perhaps this should go to WP:AfC level. Ventric (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability criteria across the board. No reliable sources cover this subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom bolema[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources that even mention this person, much less discuss them in depth. Thus, this article is not verifiable, meaning it should be deleted. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 22:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No claim of anything and no sources. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt, fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 23:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet GNG, ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum- reference added below does not address subject in depth. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There was an earlier article, Tom Bolema (note better capitalization) with the same creator, deleted in 2010 — not per a deletion discussion, though, so that part's all right. But no reliable sources and it's clearly an autobio, compare the subject, the username, and the user's sandbox. Bishonen | talk 23:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete – no claim to notability PriceDL (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The creator seems to have tried to reference this article, for what it's worth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks a marginally notable person: no time to fix the article right now (and it needs to be moved to Tom Bolema, capital B) but these look interesting: elected Green councillor, former California Green Coordinating Committee member, prison library work, Organised concert including "The Butchers" at homeless camp (the 1987 LA Time article), retirement appreciation in San Quentin News. PamD 10:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Modified 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article does not meet the usual: WP:GNG, WP:OR, etc. It flaunts even the WP:BLP1E to a ridiculous degree. This does not an article maketh. Ventric (talk) 23:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original creator of the article is assumed by this editor to be the subject himself. WP:COISELF is obviously trodden upon here. If this article was written about his work in the penal system and his previous music/organizing experience added as additional biographical information, there may be an article here. I cannot find substantive changes he has made in WP:SECONDARY sources to support such an WP:AfC. This article should be deleted, and (perhaps) properly created with the subjects name as a proper noun: Tom Bolema. _{(The man didn't even capitalize his own name....)} Users Bishonen and PamD nailed it. Ventric (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:RS covers this subject. Subject is not notable by any Wikipedia standards. Fails WP:ANYBIO, GNG, and BLP. -- Steve Quinn (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2018 (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 Mira (AK-84). Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Emery[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for military personnel. It's a great honor to have a ship named after you and those of us from the US are certainly all proud and grateful for this man's service. However, since the naming of that particular class of ship is designated to be winners of the Distinguished Service Cross and our cut-off for presumed notability is at the Medal of Honor, a higher award, without further reason, that alone is not enough to show notability. It would need to be shown that this person would meet ANYBIO, and it does not appear he does. John from Idegon (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It could be redirected to Mira (AK-84), the ship named after this person. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:GNG? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mira (AK-84), the ship named after the subject, per LaundryPizza03. I'm slightly shocked that someone for whom a ship and a military barracks were named after doesn't have any significant discussion in sources, but after having a search I found nothing. A Train^talk 15:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mira (AK-84). I strongly disagree with the nom - not meeting the SOLDIER cutoff is merely lack of presumption of notability not an indication of non-notability and having two significant objects (a barracks and a ship) named after you would actually be quite a presumption of notability. HOWEVER, as A Train, I was unable to locate any solid sourcing here to show GNG. Worthwhile to redirect to the ship and/or barracks. Content already seems to be in Mira (AK-84) and Emery Barracks so not much to merge.Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've mentioned before elsewhere, there seems to be a "the world turned upside down" effect happening or having happened with the SNGs, where they're being considered to be a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "meets GNG but fails SOLDIER = not notable", and that is a genuinely worrying thing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mira (AK-84), as above; oddly absent in sources, but 'most notable' in relation to the ship named for him. Perhaps a hatnote to the barracks should be added. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - using the search "Tuffy Emory"[sic?], I find a bit more material about him at MIT, but I am not sure I disagree that the page should redirect. I'm of the opinion that obituaries and memorials alone don't necessarilly give us enough to write a NPOV article about a subject, especially as these memorials might say more about the influence of the father than about the life of the son. One article on newspapers.com about his death ([5]) says he was a champion lightweight wrestler at MIT, but I can't find coverage that confirms or discusses his college career. If he were a national or regional champion, he would probably have a lot more coverage, so I'm not sure what is going on there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – has had two notable things named after him so I assume there's significant coverage of him somewhere even if we can't find it. Might suggest redirection if only one were named after him, but there are two equally appropriate targets. PriceDL (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian Airlines System Flight 901[edit]

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

Not notable aviation incident. Runway overruns are common. No need for an independent article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not only does this easily pass WP:GNG, also passes essay WP:AIRCRASH - "The accident or incident resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry." Major jetliners such as DC-10s as this one was overrunning runways are not common and they should not happen, thus these uncommon incidents are notable to both the aviation industry and the public. --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG and WP:AIRCRASH. This was a serious incident resulting in over 100 injuries and substantial damage to a widebody jet. A full NTSB Aircraft Accident Report was produced (there are usually less than 20 per year, sometimes less than 10, always focused on the most serious aviation incidents). The NTSB recommendations drove the FAA to mandate pilot training and safety changes. Not sure how this is not notable. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to WP:AIRCRASH.Bingobro (Chat) 14:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Meets WP:AIRCRASH as well as WP:GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Close per SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 04:24, 4 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Porch Pirates[edit]

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

If Wikipedia were to have an article on this topic, it would need to be a rewrite at Package theft. This article is marketing copy from a personal security equipment company. Υπογράφω (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio confirmed. Eventually with the infringing content, there is not enough context to identify the subject. When the infringing content is removed, the article is short enough to satisfy A1. There are no non-infringing revisions. I have tagged this for G12. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged as a copyvio already, and then the article creator (and, I presume, the source website owner) added a CC license to the source. So I don't think G12 is applicable. Υπογράφω (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the copyright licence, this doesn't read like an encyclopaedia article at all (the licensed content is from a blog). Adam9007 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:STARTOVER. This is an advertorial masquerading as an encyclopedia article. Only the dictionary definition appears to be reliably sourced. I'm not yet convinced that package theft needs a stand-alone article. Even if it does, this article would need a fundamental rewrite. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Licensed content from unreliable blog of security firm garbled with passing mention of the term in some sources in order to promote neologism apparently invented by them. This can't be included on Wikipedia per core WP:NOT policy and no evidence this concept exists in mainstream body of literature –Ammarpad (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k. The article inarguably sucks at the moment. Unencyclopedic in tone and generally full of fluff. A fluff-ectomy would kill the patient. If the NYT editor hadn't been so tickled by the term "porch pirate" as to include it in the headline, we would have speedied this. A Train^talk 15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn See comment below. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Light[edit]

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

Not seeing evidence of notability here. Sources are only brief mentions or not reliable sources. I couldn't find anything better when I searched. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Light is a major figure in the history of professional wrestling in the United States, being one of the founders of the cartel that controlled professional wrestling for several decades. Light is in particular a key figure in the history of professional wrestling in Detroit, given that he "controlled grappling in the Detroit area for nearly 20 years" and produced one of the most highly-watched television programs in Detroit. McPhail (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to believe that he is a non-notable figure. References, especially those in the book on the history of pro-wrestling are reliable sources. There are wrestler articles out there that can't claim notability, but this isn't one of them. Lee Vilenski(talk) 09:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm actually surprised how well sourced the article is given how hard it is to find wrestling sources from his era. McPhail lays out a good case for notability and he passes WP:GNG.LM2000 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first source, which the article is based almost entirely on, is ok. But the issue is that the only good one. The rest are trivial mentions or not reliable source. Wikipedia generally requires multiple good sources. However, if sources are difficult to come by for this topic during this period of history, perhaps I have misjudged this one. A bit of a borderline call anyway, so I'll withdraw my nomination. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:50, 3 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obasi Igwe[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability guidelines for academics. The citation level is not really all that good for political science. He is a respectable working political scientist, but nothing suggests that he has reached the level of significant impact in the field that the notability guidelines for academics require, and nothing else in his work suggests notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Sufficient in depth coverage to sustain article. gidonb (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Mentioned only peripherally in the one newspaper story used as a reference, not good enough for WP:GNG. And while "Politics and Globe Dictionary" has quite a respectable number of publications (162 in Google scholar) we would need more than a single well-cited publication to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:NACADEMIC and weak claims on "respectable number of publications" under WP:PROF#C1 nor achieves any signification impact in the field he practices. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sousa Dias[edit]

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

I can't find the slightest indication that this person passes WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. Admittedly I'm hampered by being restricted to searching in English only, but I don't see that he would pass any of the NPROF criteria based on the checks I've done. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a professor of philosophy who has published books is not in and of itself enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reviews of his book. That may be merely because of the language barrier, but without them I don't see a pass of WP:AUTHOR. And similarly, although his book has over 100 citations in Google scholar, it's not by itself enough to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2018 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Soma Sonic[edit]

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

I've done my best but can't find enough substantive content to justify keeping this article. The most significant coverage I can find are two reviews on Exclaim.ca ([6] and [7], one for each of their albums) and I just don't think it's enough. I've checked AllMusic, Google, GNews, GBooks, and Highbeam and come up dry.

That being said there may be electronic music RSes that I've missed, so I am happy to withdraw if anything substantive is located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 1 January 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jews from New York City[edit]

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

Still fails WP:LISTN despite being a recreation of an article previously deleted via AfD. Most of the items in the list do not have sources indicating that they are members, and we already have an article named Jews in New York City. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is why we have a category system, folks. Never can hope to be complete and just as poorly cited as version one was. Nate • (chatter) 04:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. There are literally thousands of Jewish people linked to New York City. Ajf773 (talk) 09:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article recognizes the accomplishments of over 275 people. It is encyclopedic and meets the guidelines for Wikipedia. (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 275 people, NINE sources in the article. I'm tired of 'keep it because they're famous' articles with a paucity of sources here. Improve or don't bother with these articles. Nate • (chatter) 05:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Corky 23:13, 2 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hart (basketball)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only some WP:ROUTINE coverage and local mentions. Also WP:TOOSOON for WP:NHOOPS as he is currently with a fairly low level league and is in his first pro year, would likely get more coverage in one of the European leagues. It seems his most significant depth of coverage article is this one from The Buffalo News, however, he was only covered in that paper because he was once a high school athlete there and seems to fail the intent of WP:NHSPHSATH (local coverage of a high school player/former player and signings/transfers/trades are also commonly considered routine). Yosemiter (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing coverage to meet GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby Welinder[edit]

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

None of the sources seems to be independent, and only one of them has more than two sentences about her. She doesn't seem to meet any relevant notability guidelines. KSFT ^(t|c) 17:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indeed, the sources don't even verify the content, not that any of them are reliable independent sources anyway. This is obviously an advitorial. John from Idegon (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing indicates her work is significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Nikolai Volkov[edit]

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

While tragic, this is simply coverage of a murder. As per WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps one could recreate a page about the person, Nikolai Volkov, but I am not sure if he is sufficiently notable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. pages seems a news report/cover. Suggest delete as per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2018 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrell Fortune[edit]

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

Lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet the notability standards for MMA fighters or sportspeople. He never competed at the highest level of his sport--only at junior or university competitions. Not sure how he was an 8 time high school American (an undocumented claim) while winning only 2 state high school championships.Sandals1 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator. Does not meet WP:NMMA.PRehse (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for MMA fighters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2018 (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings and structures in Blackpool[edit]

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

Following the demolition of Walter Robinson Court, Elizabeth Court and Churchill Court, this list article is reduced to effectively comprise three entries: the Blackpool Tower and two theme park rides. Given that there are no plans to build any structures of significant height in Blackpool beyond this, I am nominating this article for deletion because it is not notable for these reasons. Beeperbeeper5 (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There's only really one tall structure in Blackpool, regardless of how many rollercoasters and rides they build. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article should not be deleted because, at a minimum it can be merged/redirected to a larger area list of tallest buildings. It is quite normal to have/keep lists of tallest buildings. Also, it doesn't terribly matter that two buildings are gone; they can still be described as former structures, and I don't know that 5 or 3 items is too few to have a list about, anyhow. Having list-articles is good for limiting rampant coverage of individual buildings in separate articels. We don't want to force creation of separate articles in lieu of having buildings covered as individual items in a list. Please get it together and figure where you want this material merged to, if you really hate this list-article. Then whether it should be merged or not is a function of how long that other list is, perhaps. --Doncram (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's just one of many similar lists in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United Kingdom. One option would be to merge the Blackpool list with the List of tallest buildings and structures in Preston and perhaps other lists to create List of tallest buildings and structures in Lancashire (currently a redlink), which could then have one section for Blackpool and one section for Preston, with no net gain in any quest to remove information from Wikipedia. I fail to see why the Blackpool information should be simply deleted. I fail to see why merger should be necessary, though I don't terribly oppose it. I'll "vote" Keep for now, would update my vote if someone does some work.

By the way, if Walter Robinson Court has in fact been demolished, then someone should update List of tallest buildings by United Kingdom settlement which maybe now should drop it, and perhaps update List of tallest destroyed buildings and structures in the United Kingdom which maybe now should add it. --Doncram (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really is very little to be gained in this article. The Blackpool Tower already is mentioned in the tallest UK structures list, and the two rides at Blackpool Pleasure Beach are already referred to within that article. The three demolished structures are not notable, almost every town and city has or had high rise apartment blocks, and the Blackpool ones were comparatively short. Anonymoussmith (talk) 11:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Anonymoussmith. Aside from its eponymous tower, Blackpool does not have a significant or notable association with high-rise buildings and structures, and this is demonstrated by the small number of entries on this list (which are all presently covered in other articles on high-rise structures in the UK). Eloquai (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2018 (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 page has been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9019:1800:10D0:DD3E:13BF:F851 (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aria Networks[edit]

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

Though the article was kept at a 2010 AfD, this was based on one article in The Express (which I've added), a press release and an 'article' on an independent financila advisor company website. I can't imagine that would take it past today's WP:NCORP notability threshold. I can find nothing else of substance online about the company, other than press releases, the usual company directory profiles and the occasional blog. The company claims to be a pioneer but I can't see any independent proof. This company is operating in the digital age so I'd expect to be able to find coverage if it existed. All this, combined with the continual attempts by IPs to re-write it advertorially, had led me to think it's better the article is deleted. fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 13:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yuppp. That express article is mostly quotes from the company. Not independent. Fails NORG and WP:NOTPROMO too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Only run of the mill press realeases. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dada Pamma Ram Mela[edit]

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

Notability per WP:NEVENT uncertain for me. Was going to A7, but good coverage is found in those sources. Appears to be an insignificant local event, but if it were anything else it would pass WP:GNG probably. The page creator has not done a good job of explaining its significance. Bringing here for discussion and community consideration. !dave 13:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G5, see Vijaysuthar008877. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 05:18, 2 January 2018 (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. As Women's football in Liechtenstein. Sandstein 12:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Liechtenstein women's national football team[edit]

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

The article clearly states there's no team and hardly any plans to create one. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't exist. Giant Snowman 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't exist, not enough meaningful content to merge to Football in Liechtenstein. PriceDL (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article states, the national federation is working to develop a team, and the current article is the best holding spot for the four different youth women's national teams who have played friendlies, international tournaments or are scheduled to play. "not enough meaningful content" is not a valid reason to delete. That is an issue of "article needs improvement and to be expanded." If "not enough meaningful content" a reason people want to have for deletion, this rational should be put forward in a en.wp wide RfC given this would pretty much result in the removal of almost all stubs. --LauraHale (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @LauraHale: I said delete because it's not notable because it doesn't exist, not because it doesn't include enough meaningful content. The lack of content is why I'm not suggesting it not be merged to Football in Liechtenstein, which is probably the most sensible place for information on attempts to develop a women's team to exist. PriceDL (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect - the simple fact is that this team doesn't exist, no senior women's international team from Liechtenstein has ever played any sort of formal match, they are now mentioned at Football in Liechtenstein, so a redirect there would probably seem best as a plausible search term. However:

No reason why junior teams shouldn't have their own article, especially those that have played competitive matches, so not sure why this is being used as a holding pen. I think at this stage the U-16 team is the same as the U-17 team given when they both competed, but I see no reason not to have Liechtenstein women's national under-17 football team and Liechtenstein women's national under-19 football team, as viable standalone articles.
The Background and Development section should be moved to Football in Liechtenstein as well sourced prose, but nonetheless prose that is more closely related to the women's game in Liechtenstein as a sport rather than the national team specifically. I will look to do this shortly. Fenix down (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved relevant sourced prose to Football in Liechtenstein where I think it is more relevant and where it is appropriate that content discussing a team which does not exist should be held. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football in Liechtenstein#Women's national football team, per Fenix down. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Women's football in Liechtenstein (or similar) There's enough information and interest for there to be an article on just women's football. I agree that the name of the article is a problem, but that's easily fixed by renaming. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Mega.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: @Megalibrarygirl:, do we really need to split Football in Liechtenstein at this point in time? Not really sure there is sufficient content in that article to warrant one article on men's football and one article on women's football. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough content to justify it's own article without bloating the other but doesn't really matter that much. Why not? We're not paper.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not really how things are done. There are only a couple of articles specifically on women's football in individual countries, the sport is normally documented without the need to split by gender. Here we seem to want to split a four paragraph article into a couple of two paragraph articles. Not saying that there won't be a need in the future, but just don't see the need here now. More importantly, such a split actually serves to make it more difficult for readers to find out about women's football in Liechtenstein. As Template:Football in Europe templates shows, the conventional heading is simply "Football in ...". Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one editor I know who was heavily into Russian topics and a curious interest in Bhutan and that was Russavia. It's highly unusual for an editor to have a major interest in both. Just saying. ;-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if that's the case, I suppose the redirect from the original title should be deleted. The very fact that Liechtenstein is on the list of women's national association football teams seems misleading. It also seems the whole list should be revised. Turkmenistan is the first link I clicked on... WikiArticleEditor (talk) 16:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp with new name. As long as there is no widely accepted national team, the article should be presented in more general terms. It certainly contains a lot of useful information and is well sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Megalibrarygirl, as there is apparently no recognized national team. The topic of Women's football in lichtenstein certainly seems notable, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/merge per recommendation of Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as Women's football in Liechtenstein, per similar articles for other European countries. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amer Hakeem[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NFOOTY. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In 2018, the player will play in S.League, it should pass WP:NFOOTY. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot preduict the future and so should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:09, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not satisfying WP:NSOCCER--Safe My Edit (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2018 (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 (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Evening[edit]

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

Non-notable talk show lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. reddogsix (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the most well-known talk-show in Armenia. Furthermore, it is hosted by two of the prominent musicians in Armenia. Literally everyone in Armenia talks about the show after the new episode airs. Harut111 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Harut111: If what you're saying is true there should be a lot of coverage of the show in Armenian secondary sources. Are you able to produce some news sources/reviews from Armenian reliable sources talking about the show? I'd look for them myself, but I know zero Armenian. Brustopher (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Brustopher: Sure. Here are some. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] If the hosts are Aram and Garik (the most famous ones in Armenia), it simply cannot but have many sources.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 18:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Harut111 and the sources provided above. Brustopher (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't we going to finish the discussion? It has been more that 10 days... Harut111 (talk) 17:04, 4 January 2018 (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. Flawed arguments on the keep side QEDK and Eloquai, please read WP:INHERITED) but no one has specifically rebutted Thinker78's sources (or the last-minute additions from CASSIOPEIA) which seem to be robust enough to support a BLP. A Train^talk 12:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Riley[edit]

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

A man with a job. Unreliable. Article seems to be a result of COI, sockpuppetry, subsequent removal/redirecting and subsequent restoring. The Banner talk 21:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AfD is appropriate for this. We've played this cat and mouse game many times before with determined COI/SPAs. It's been up for discussion before. The same person(s) (as per behaviour) regularly try to revert the decisions formed by consensus by established editors - often with sticking in a cheeky dig too, perhaps out of spite or perhaps out of deception by distraction (e.g. in this instance the editor who'd never used this site before said 'removed sockpuppet edit'). I've just undone their edits as there doesn't seem to be significant coverage (other than that associated with the company's take-over) of the subject and this is just another attempt to circumvent. Rayman60 (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but deserves the community to suffer from this? Why not protecting, salting or what ever other trick that is possible? The Banner talk 22:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the time is there, and the decision is to delete it might be a good idea to salt this article to avoid the sockpuppetry, cat-and-mouse and other games played in the past. The Banner talk 18:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:GNG, topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject^[1]^[2]^[3], therefore it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 10:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:ANYBIO; an advertorially toned page on an unremarkable CEO. Coverage is in passing, relating to the company and / or WP:SPIP. Wikipedia is not a CV-hosting service. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. And, per WP:SPIP, in my opinion, " people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter" (see the references I included in my comment above). Also, per WP:ATD, "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first..." Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Coverage does not rise above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found it notable. Please add a threaded comment under my findings above to discuss it. Remember that decisions are taken by consensus so other comments should be read and comment on as well if they are against your opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 06:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of a very notable company. Obvious keep is obvious. Riley has been included in honarary lists and help important positions thereto. Reads neutral and I see no cause to delete. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 06:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, so the fact that he works for "a very notable company", as you state it, has no influence on his notability. The Banner talk 10:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes as much sense as saying the Pope doesn't gain notability for leading the Catholic Church. The subjectly is inherently notable for holding the most important position of a notable company and I'm just adding on to the preceding support, as evidenced. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 18:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject has received coverage in a range of reputable news sources; admittedly not as much as other tech bosses but enough to take him over the line of notability in my opinion. I also agree with User:QEDK above - his role as a CEO might not be notable in itself, but as the CEO of a major technology company (which has recently become one of Apple's largest corporate acquisitions), his position is not inconsequential either. Eloquai (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets wP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Reliable source found here- [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-yahoo-exec-thrilled-to-join-brotherhood-of-church
^ http://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a810508/shazam-ceo-also-invented-toolbars-for-internet-browsers/
^ http://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/news/article/Meet-your-neighbor-Rich-Riley-10800722.php

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. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guardic[edit]

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

I got nothing. Fails WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could also not find anything - Shame. Looks like a fun game Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:26, 4 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color Lines[edit]

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

I've searched...and come up with nada. Coin945 (talk) 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find nothing either: No reviews on GameRankings either. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:25, 4 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abyss (video game)[edit]

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

I'm getting bupkis. I'm convinced it exists, but the literature doesn't have much to say about it unfortunately. Coin945 (talk) 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – some reviews in print sources but fairly trivial. It's possible more exist that aren't findable online but I doubt enough to make it notable PriceDL (talk) 17:34, 1 January 2018 (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 Rivet#Installation. Content is still visible in history if anyone wishes to merge or copy to draft (with attribution of course). ansh 666 10:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bucking bar[edit]

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

This article currently consists of an unsourced dictionary definition, and any additional future content could easily be included in Rivet or Rivet gun. The topic has no significance outside of its role in the riveting process. –dlthewave ☎ 04:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It seems like this is dlthewave's payback for me mentioning that I felt Stephen Paddock should not be given an article. I posted comments about thinking it didn't seem right that a murderer like Stephen Paddock be considered notable and be given an article - now with an expanded personal life section - versus someone like Heather Meyer who was killed at the Charlottesville Rally back in August. The user has edited articles on both the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally and the Las Vegas Shooting article. I've expressed my opinion that victims should be notable because focusing on criminals gives the criminal more attention and incentives further violence. In regards to the Bucking Bar article which I created after being surprised there was no article on Wikipedia about it, I have discussed with someone in the past on Wikipedia who agreed that since there is likely an article for Hammer, which is a tool which could be made of many different things, there should be an article for a Bucking Bar. I actually didn't know if there was an article for Hammer but was pretty confident there was one. Indeed, there is a very nice article for Hammer. There are whole companies which sell Bucking Bars. I feel there should be a Bucking Bar article. Synesthetic (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well... leaving aside the motivation here... there seems to be a lot to say about hammers, seeing as there are a gazillion types and they have been around since some Australopithecine got tired of bruising their knuckles. Is there much to say about bucking bars, beside the dicdef? "Piece of metal behind rivet" doesn't lend itself much to informative coverage in secondary sources... maybe etymology, but that's still within dicdef territory. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would move to draft pending potential expansion into something worth having in article space. With physical inventions, there is always something more than the etymology of the term. When was it first invented? Is there a specific person who came up with it, or did it merely come to be used in a certain time period without a specific inventor being identifiable? Has the invention been improved over time, and if so, in what ways? There's enough to say about it that this guy was able to make the video on this page. bd2412 T 17:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rivet#Installation as a {{R with possibilities}}. There isn't enough for a stand-alone article currently, and with its additional context, the article rivet does a better job of describing what a bucking bar actually is. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability of this subject is undetermined and from the above it seems as if all relevant information is already covered in other articles. EvilxFish (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rivet. We don't need an article on every component used in every process. There's more than enough information in rivet. When there gets too much there, we can bring the redirect out of retirement and give it a glorious page all of its own, fully described, referenced and duly polished. Until then... well. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rivet#Installation -- the number of possible different shapes may be vast, but they're all about putting an anvil in place to strike against. As the bar serves no other purpose than to be used in the installation of rivets, it is suitable to merge and redirect. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: LOL-- LOL-- LOL--, sorry! Strong keep as payback? That's a good one, and one of the better of rationale. I love Wikipedia. There is this little policy that apparently is not important, or over-looked (I hope the later), that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Maybe significant coverage is not really required. We can "ignore the rules" because it will help Wikipedia somehow, or mothball the 29 words as a redirect until such time as we have enough for a full-blown article. The "I'm pissed at you so keep" expended more words in the first line and there are five more lines. On a more serious note Rivet gun would be the more suited place for coverage but with only 29 words and such passion I think we could just blank-and-redirect. Otr500 (talk) 04:26, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okay so there is an article for anvil already which a bucking bar appears to be a type of. I would still think bucking bar deserves a page. Think about all of the things in your life which are riveted. Bucking bars helped create them. Synesthetic (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't mind if there could be a stand-alone article having been an automotive technician and paint and body man for over 30 years. I have used a pneumatic rivet gun, that will not work without a bucking bar set, that actually is like a mobile anvil and similar to a dolly used in bodywork. Given some of the other options above I would prefer stand-alone considering there is Hammer (firearms), Trigger (firearms), and other like articles.

To some, the apparent "sourcing thing" might be deemed a thing of the past but at present, and no viable options offered, (there are no references), I have a hard time with other options. Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2018 (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. JPL's BLP concerns appear to have been addressed. A Train^talk 12:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Keymer[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim of notability per WP:NACTOR and no reliable source coverage to support it. His roles so far appear to be minor ones, not "major" roles for the purposes of clearing NACTOR, because none of the ones that have Wikipedia articles list him in their cast lists at all, and several of them don't even appear in his IMDb credits either, and the article doesn't cite any references at all. As always, every actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he has an IMDb profile -- he needs to be the subject of media coverage for an article to become earned, but there's no evidence that Oskar Keymer has been. And his article on de: doesn't cite any references either, so we can't just salvage this by copying anything over from there. The only reason I'm not also listing the German article for deletion is that I don't speak or write German in order to navigate the process. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep~~Delete Non notable child actor~~. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed after reading below sources L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly notable as lead actor in de:Hilfe, ich hab meine Lehrerin geschrumpft, with other leading roles in de:Conni & Co and its sequel. —Kusma (t·c) 11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kusma, this is an unreferenced blp. Do you have multiple, independent sources to confirm notability? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this is currently a completely unreferenced BLP (so I'm not voting "keep"), but he does meet WP:NACTOR per his films (which unfortunately don't have articles in English). Possible sources: [22] (mentioning his date of birth), [23], [24]. (Just from a Google News search for his name). —Kusma (t·c) 21:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete the only source listed in the article is IMDb, and IMDB is not a reliable source. The article fully and clearly violates our guidelines on biographies of living people, which states that all such articles must have reliable sources baking up what is stated in the article. So if an article has no reliable sources in it, it must be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anybody here ever follow WP:BEFORE? This AfD has been around for two weeks and yet only I can find sources off Google? These delete votes above are obviously un-researched. This is no longer unsourced. Trackinfo (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly meets WP:NACTOR, and the sources Trackinfo added to the article plus those I mention above should be enough to prove this. —Kusma (t·c) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not meeting WP:NACTOR, not finding significant independence coverage to determined huge following. May be WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2018 (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 keep !votes have failed to address the nominator's concern that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Buchanan[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, with no strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR and no strong reliable source coverage to support it. His "most notable role" is as a recurring supporting character, not as a main one, and his other listed roles are all one-off television appearances or minor characters in films -- and the only source present here is a post to his sister's Instagram account. As always, an actor does not automatically get a Wikipedia article just because he's had roles -- he has to be the subject of reliable source coverage in real (not social) media about him and his performances in those roles before an article becomes appropriate, but there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - He is a major cast member on a hit TV show on a major network. How much more does he need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk • contribs)
Some actual reliable source coverage about him in real media, for starters. Notability always depends on that — nobody, but nobody, is ever notable enough for a Wikipedia article without that. Bearcat (talk) 05:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've seen articles about cast members of say Survivor, do nothing after and keep an article, while Teck Holmes cannot have one, despite having an accomplished career in entertainment, because he "only did MTV" as a castmember of Real World. Notability shouldn't be so subjective. Just my 2c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.206.94.35 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's done several other notable roles such as Fuller House and The Fosters. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per nomination. ─ 1997 kB 07:11, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 episodes in a series is not the stuff a significant role is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "3 episodes in a series" is disingenuous. 16 episodes of Designated Survivor, 6 of The Fosters, 5 of Game Shakers, a lead role in the upcoming Karate Kid series. Arguably, those are enough to cover WP:NACTOR. I've added some basic sources to the article but they may be short of meeting the GNG. All in all, undecided for now. Mortee (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2018 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vada O. Manager[edit]

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

A CV-like page on an unremarkable business executive. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. Article is cited to passing mentions, WP:SPIP and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by a banned sock Special:Contributions/Salmonthelovedog. Not notable for public career either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate any real world notability as required by WP:GNG, WP:BLP & WP:BIO etc. Mattg82 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing even approaching notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Roost[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. I found this and this, but it hardly supports notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 09:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time that every article sourced only to IMDb be removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Poor sourcing in an article does not make a subject non-notable. His one-man stage shows have received quite a bit of coverage ([25], [26], [27], [28]) and his TV credits are easily verified. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:28, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. This is a BLP with zero references. Consensus has determined that IMDb is not a reliable source and "External links" are not references. As a reminder, this is a BLP and as such is held to a higher degree concerning references. Four links were provided above, #1, #2, #3 are about "Pope Head" and #4 about the "one-man play". Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability, so this is considered as being two references. The talk page shows the issues concerning a lack of were mentioned almost a year ago. and now there are two, and this is not enough to think about passing GNG. Otr500 (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Three references are about the same thing and it is considered as one towards notability" - seriously? --Michig (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Jay[edit]

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

most of the claimed notability is not in my field, but I don';t see how any of it meets my standard. The Huffington Post does not have sufficient editorial control for a BLP, and the Inc item is a Inc Profile , which any privately owned business with an English language website can get for $30 a year.[29] . (I suspect we may have to check every article on a business using an Inc reference to remove the ones that are Inc Profiles.-- I did not realize how useless they wee until I read all the details on the linked page--by expanding the faqs at the bottom) DGG ( talk ) 07:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Does not meet WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage of the subject. From a Factiva search, the only independent source mentioning her appears to be a Gold Coast Bulletin article (also published in Cairns Post) about a song written about her by a former X-Factor contestant. All other mentions on Google appear to be either trivial or non-reliable, or are self-published/republished press releases (see WP:BASIC). Only thing weighing in favour of keep is that she has a large fan base per WP:NMODEL but this is not a conclusive factor. Kb.au (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:GNG . There is significant coverage of her modeling career, and her role in So You Think You Can Dance was documented in her IMBd page. Cannady212 (talk) 23:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As John Pack Lambert pointed out, IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDBREF), and a list of television appearances does not show notability regardless. Unsure what the significant coverage of her modelling career you're referring to is. Only independent source (that is, not self published or based on a press release) is an interview with her on blogging platform Medium. Kb.au (talk) 09:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The WP:GNG is met. Significant coverage does not imply a significant number of sources, but whether a topic is addressed directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. In this case, there is significant coverage of the model on several media outlets. Plus she has a large fanbase per WP:NMODEL. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 13:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the keep votes show a total lack of understanding what is and what is not a reliable source. IMDb is absolutely not at all a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I do agree that IMDb is not at all a reliable source, I don't understand why Gold Coast Bulletin and Inc Magazine are considered unreliable? Neither are self-published nor press releases. ⚜ LithOldor ⚜ ^(T) 13:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After ignoring social media, self publishing sites, promos, and primary, there is essentially nothing left of any significance that I can readily find. Fails WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(correction The Inc articles was not a link profile, as Litholdor pointed out to me on my talk p. I'd say it would be more accurately classed as a press release, or at best an advertorial. The give-away was the author, "By Wanda Thibodeaux, Copywriter, TakingDictation.com", and the expected line at the bottom: "The opinions expressed here by Inc.com columnists are their own, not those of Inc.com." DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial on a nn individual, built on WP:SPIP sourcing. Basically, spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weighing in with the re-listing. This subjects only claim to notability is a social media following, which doesn’t count. Also feeble is the recognition she may have received by an appearance on a tv show competition. Re: the keep votes, I wonder to what the degree the editors critically looked at the content of the sources/google hits? They all are derived from the subject's own press release/promo/advertorial origin. Yes, sources such as Inc. Magazine and The Gold Coast Bulletin can contain reliable coverage independent of the subject, but not every bit of content therein meets that criteria. Non-paid repurposing of promotional material can (and in this case is) passed off as "real" coverage merely to serve as content to fill out a publication/website. In this regard, the argument of meeting GNG by “…significant coverage…on several media outlets…” misses the mark. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage on this subject at all. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Social-media C-lister of insufficent additional notability. SunChaser (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2018 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Herois e vampiros[edit]

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

Article seems to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:25, 1 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D3 (expo)[edit]

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

A one-time Expo in 2006. Coin945 (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:36, 8 January 2018 (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. A Train^talk 13:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next Selangor state election[edit]

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

No notability and references angys (Talk Talk) 10:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article will be dated once the next Selangor election has taken place, and thus will constantly need modification. In addition, it does not have any references. Vorbee (talk) 11:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It's well established that articles on state elections in Malaysia are appropriate for Wikipedia (see contents of this template). Being unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. Given the number of articles on state elections we have in the US or district elections in the UK, this nomination would appear to be a classic case of WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. Number 5 7 10:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply But why? The election aren't held at others time like Sarawak. It is not necessary to create an articleto describe it. If this keep, there will same article like Penang, Johor and other states. angys (Talk Talk) 11:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Vorbee mentioned above, the scope of this article is inherently dynamic as it will change after every election. The next is scheduled to take place in August. I will nominate similarly titled articles for move, and maybe they’ll end up at AfD. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This shows a fundamental lack of understanding of election article titling. Future election of uncertain date are named "Next Fooian [type] election". See eg Next Spanish general election or Next United Kingdom general election. Once dates are set (or the electiom must occur in a certain year) the articles are moved to include the year in the title. Number 5 7 01:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Articles on upcoming (and imminent) state-wide elections are well within the scope of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I would also strongly second Number 57's point on systematic bias - it would send a peculiar message if this article were to be deleted while a multitudinous number of equivalent articles for English-speaking and Western countries remain. Eloquai (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, as you said, the state election has notability. So that means we can create more meaningless article e.g. Next Penang state election, Next Perlis state election, Next Johor state election and more. One thing you must know is that election will be held with general election. (Only S'wak for special case) So Wikipedia really needs 12 new Malaysia state election article, absolute No. angys (Talk Talk) 12:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles on those subjects could be expanded with information on the parties and candidates standing, the leaders and their respective platforms, the main state-wide issues, opinion polling, endorsements, and the campaign itself. I fail to see how that would be a 'meaningless' endeavour and, as noted, this article and all those potential articles would fall within Wikipedia's notability policies, which is the key issue for us here at AfD. Eloquai (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (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 and move to Thunder Fox (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderFox[edit]

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

Pre-internet games are notoriously hard to source, but this one seems harder than most. Coin945 (talk) 01:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move - Arcade System games are always harder to find, but this one is mentioned on GameRankings, including two reviews. May have been harder to find, as the title is actually Thunder Fox. MobyGames also has reviews. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lee Vilenski, do you have a target for a move in mind?E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As below User:E.M.Gregory, Thunder Fox would be the correct place to move. I'm sure it's not that big a deal, but it should be moved. Meets WP:GNG in my eyes. Lee Vilenski(talk) 11:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep and move page to Thunder Fox as suggested by User:Lee Vilenski. the game has some notability, including popularity of the music as a chiptune and ongoing interest by aficionados of ancient games.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:07, 5 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prolific Publishing[edit]

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

Three line stub. Does this really have enough notability for a whole article? Coin945 (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:51, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no sources since creation. Does not notability guidelines for companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2018 (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 12:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of arcade video games: Not released[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, this article contains a list of games struggling for independent notability due to all being unreleased. It's essentially a list of redlinks. Coin945 (talk) 01:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete listcruft that can easily be covered by an "Unreleased" under the year in the main list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zxcvbnm FWIW this was split when the main article was separated due to size concerns (June 2013). Talk:List of arcade video games#Size split?. The decision to separate "Unreleased" games seems to be an editorial decision of the user making the alphabetical split. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This really needs to be considered in the context of similar content. We have Category:Cancelled video games, Category:Vaporware video games, List of vaporware... Is this intended to correspond to one of those categories? Is it duplicative of the video game section of the latter list? Can it be developed further, should it be merged or redirected somewhere else, or should it just be deleted? I don't know the answer, and neither does the nominator because there's no discussion of how this fits in with other content. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD requires that we ask those questions before nominating anything for deletion. postdlf (talk) 20:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a category and many sub-categories already exist for Cancelled Video games. However this list has many issues regarding verifibility that need to be resolved. Ajf773 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a fan of the current title. I th8nk something like List of unreleased arcade games comes off as more natural.--67.68.21.146 (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft of mostly red-linked entries. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable cruft by definition. Fails LISTN and can be better addressed through categories. James (^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 8 January 2018 (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 (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harobots[edit]

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

Article is confusingly written and scope is not clear. If this is notable is may be better to nuke and start again. Coin945 (talk) 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:32, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [30] better describes what the game actually is. No references, and unlikely to be any in English as the game was only released in Japan. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:25, 4 January 2018 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin 3D[edit]

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

Unsourced wall of text. Coin945 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regional converter[edit]

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

Can't find enough coverage about this particular term. Coin945 (talk) 01:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm seeing a good chunk of coverage related to a marketing term which I think makes this topic a valid red link for a different topic. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2018 (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. ansh 666 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing video game[edit]

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

I don't think this is a sub-genre in the video gaming literature. Coin945 (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, I'd argue that it is. Monster of the Deep: Final Fantasy XV is keeping that fishing genre alive. There have been quite a few games that primarily revolve around fishing, as evidenced by the category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:33, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do they classify themselves as "fishing video games", and do critics bunch them all together into a 'genre'? Or do they all just happen to share a common theme?--Coin945 (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they classify themselves as fishing games or simulators and there is a niche market for them. I remember there being various fishing rod peripherals. So I think there's enough for an article that would be unfit to merge into "action game"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs a re-title, as this suggests that there was a video game called "fishing video game", either "fishing in Video Games", "List of Fishing in Video Games", or "Fishing Video Games" would be fine. I don't think it warrants deletion though, as there have been an awful lot of mini-games and full blown fishing titles over the years for an article on the topic to be viable. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:15, 4 January 2018 (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 Military simulation. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual battlefield[edit]

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

~~Is this a neologism? Coin945 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)~~ Fails WP:GNG--Coin945 (talk) 01:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep SK1 - nominator does not advance a deletion rationale. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)Struck as rationale provided. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to military simulation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Zx. A redirect to military simulation seems most-fitting. --Izno (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect appears to be the best solution here, I think, as it would be a valid search term. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above SeraphWiki (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - Can't say much else, it's not a standalone article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:18, 4 January 2018 (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 as expired WP:PROD. ansh 666 10:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gallagher's Gallery[edit]

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

I can't find any sources. It's part of a larger series. Could be merged? Coin945 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:22, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Macintosh games. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AmoebArena[edit]

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

I can't find sources. Coin945 (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I found some blogs and websites dedicated to this game but no any real secondary sources. This game was a Macintosh game created way back in 1994 so I guess not much sources can be found. Anyway, I would suggest merging this game into List of Macintosh games instead of deleting it. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above - Mobygames doesn't have any much, and GameRankings had nothing Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Long Beach shooting[edit]

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

A tragic but otherwise unnotable shooting. The coverage was limited to a day (maybe two at best) but Wikipedia is not news and the death of the perp means no trial so continued coverage or a lasting impact are both highly unlikely. Some of this may be attested to a more recent shooting in the same region but an excuse doesn't suit our notability guidelines. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a news source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:EVENT. No lasting RS coverage for this event. No evidence of lasting impact. Non-notable workplace violence. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. This is sad and I wish it wasn't true, but... a shooting in the United States that only kills two people is far too common to be notable. It happens literally every day. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2018 (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 Full Grown. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Munro[edit]

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

Depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, and is about the company, not about the person. —cnzx (talk • contribs) 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vaild point. Blackash (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Full Grown which has enough independent reliable sources coverage to pass WP:GNG whereas this article does not have enough sources for a stand alone article Atlantic306 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing actually shows notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Full Grown Blackash (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Company founder not notable on his own.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings as a duplicate article; no need to have two discussions ongoing at the same time. ansh 666 05:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Long Branch shooting[edit]

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

Per WP:NCRIME —cnzx (talk • contribs) 08:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 08:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a run-of-the-mill incident (by the US standards)--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't say there has been anything particularly unique about the shooting of coverage. After all, Wikipedia is not news, nor is it an indiscriminate database for tragic shootings. Perhaps I am wrong but it is far too soon to determine and it is up to article creators to wait until notability is actually established.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Sadly, the murders of *ONLY* four people in a mass shooting is tragically too ordinary to merit the kind of long-term coverage that would establish notability. Any meaningful content could be preserved by a merge to Long Branch, New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An AfD debate is also open for this crime at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Raymond3023 (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As far as I know, there have been no shootings yet in 2018 in Long Branch, New Jersey. Fails WP:CRYSTAL Rhadow (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NCRIME, and also as duplicative of the more developed 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings, if it can survive its own AfD. No matter what happens on that page, this page should go. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete this is a duplicate article of 2017 Long Branch, New Jersey shootings, and I don't think it's notable at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:02, 5 January 2018 (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 (NPASR). (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

James deSouza[edit]

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

Catholic priest of below bishop rank. WP:MILL biography, no indication of meeting WP:GNG. Cited coverage is passing mentions or dead links. Sandstein 09:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~delete~~ - not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Content, including context, suggests notability. It does need an update and clean-up, but leans towards notability. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the rather questionable phrasing leads me to believe he was the rector of St. Patrick's, a position of at least some significance, and he seems to have played a significant role in it's history. That ain't much, admittedly, but it might be enough for marginally qualifying as notable. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he was a local parish preist and involved in founding a high school, this is not the stuff notability is made of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a rector of a seminary and a principal of a school is notable enough. And he is mentioned in four different independent reliable sources.~ ScitDei^{Wanna talk?} 11:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At most Weak keep -- A long and no doubt useful career, but I doubt that being briefly head of what was probably a small seminary makes him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is mentioned in four reliable sources. Long career. Rector of seminary seals his notability. There are no reasons to delete him.desmay (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see the word mentioned a lot but the policy required detailed sources to count to N. Do detailed sources exist?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 1 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WiFi Map[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No significant coverage found. Third-party sources provided appear to be sponsored content without editorial independence. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note This comment by the article creator suggests that the article is SEO spam. James (^talk/_contribs) 16:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can safely draw that conclusion from just that comment. Assume good faith. It is a reasonable expectation that a Wikipedia article one creates will become visible on Google - article creators want their article to be read, otherwise what would be the point of writing it - the article creator may not have known about Google's indexing delays or other possible benign explanations for the issue.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has serious grammatical and stylistic problems in places, but that can be fixed. There are clearly enough independent reliable sources covering this software to have an article about it - yes, some sources, like CNet Downloads and Crunchbase, just basically republish press releases, but not all of the references are of that type.--greenrd (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: WiFi Map has received coverage in Money Marketing, which is a major publication in the United Kingdom. However, as of now, that's the only notable source that I'm seeing. Crunchbase is also a pretentious publication but this seems to only be a company profile, rather than in-depth coverage. Unfortunately though, WiFi Map is not a new app and if it were truly notable, it would have received more coverage by now, in my opinion. Carajou (talk) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an assertion of rs but no citations. It would help the decision if the keep side could show which sources are acceptable given the amount of pr here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per @James Allison:. "...sponsored content without editorial independence..." translates (to me) as advertisement, as "not notable" evidenced by a lack of reliable sources. If the company was notable (WiFi Map, LLC) maybe this could be placed in a section. The references on the article provides instructions (against policy), such as how to Access Millions of Hotspots Worldwide with the WiFi Map App". Advertising a company's "hacking app" might be interesting but providing space on Wikipedia for apps (with links and instructions) that can "25 Ethical WiFi Password Hacking Android Apps in 2017" "hack" (an internet guide reference) WiFi (article content: ...it deciphers all the passwords and codes that limit access...), touted as a plus for those with low-end data plans, does not seem like something an encyclopedia should provide. Research indicates there could be reliably sourced content on the subject of WiFi app's (purpose/use, pros, cons, legal issues) but not this advertising/instruction article or this specific app. See: Extra comments. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments: There are potential legal ramifications. When an app goes beyond broadcasting Public WiFi hotspots, to arguably stealing "private WiFi", otherwise referred to as “Piggybacking” or "WiFi squatting" and many have likely done this on a neighbors WiFi, but provides the location and passwords of "private" connections, this should be scary to many.

A friend can visit, ask permission (legal) to use your WiFi, then post this information (not legal) so others using the app can now use the WiFi which is stealing (unauthorized use) and if this person does not have unlimited WiFi (a lot of us don't) there is a monetary loss, but certainly a breech of privacy. If you look out your window, and see a strange vehicle do not be alarmed, it is just a person checking his/her facebook and not "casing the joint". If you are the person in the vehicle, do not worry (even if you are "casing the joint") just explain to the officer you were just checking your email using this cool app you learned about on Wikipedia (it could happen), apologize and you will just be directed to leave. There are plenty more private connections on the app you can "explore".

There have been arrests, litigation, and even corporate lawsuits (Comcast, Google) on the legality of "WiFi squatting" as violating the 1986 federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. If you walk or drive down the street and your cell phone (or other tech equipment) hits on an open "hotspot" (intentionally open), this is not considered to be illegal but "IF you know" (your app is seeking out more than "open" WiFi) there can be culpability. At the least you are an accidental criminal. Now we have Wikipedia providing a vehicle to advance this with provided instructions.

"IF" consensus decides to keep this instruction manual , it should be reduced to the content of the lead as a stub (there will still be reliable sources issues concerning notability as opposed to advertising) either by consensus or an administrator. Wikipedia can surely (I hope) do better than this. Otr500 (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mashinsky[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to lack substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources that are intellectually independent from the subject. Rentier (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has a very good number of references in Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar and definitely meets the notability criteria. He is also the winner of Einstein Technology Award from Israeli Prime Minister. More references added after the article was tagged for deletion.REMIAH (talk) 09:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC) — REMIAH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Not sure about the "very good number of references" REMIAH mentioned being of the non-trivial sort, but I did find this 1997 feature on Mashinsky in The Economist. The rest of the mentions of him in sources are mostly in conjunction with his companies, though a few provide a little information on his work within such companies (more than just a listing of his post as CEO), like this 1998 Business Week article and this MIT Technology Review article. Of questionable independence though potentially useful are a 2017 Forbes op-ed, this online article (and several others) from the editor-in-chief of CHIPIN.com, and this article from Light Reading Inc (it won't load for me so I cannot verify its usefulness). -Indy beetle (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, The Economist article is also a trivial mention, its main subject is one of his companies. The coverage of him is limited to seven words: "Israeli with a background in commodity trading" [31]. All in all, the collection of brief mentions clearly fails the spirit and the letter of WP:ANYBIO. As far as I can tell, no independent reliable source has ever dedicated more than half of a sentence to Mashinsky. Rentier (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to tell from Google Books snippets whether the coverage in the Economist article is significant or not. I have access to the full text via a university library and can confirm that there is very little coverage of Mashinsky himself - certainly none beyond the first paragraph, which contains the seven words quoted by Rentier and that he had the idea for his company's business model while lying in his bed in 1993 and had an office above a Manhattan disco. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks suspiciously promotional to me. Number 5 7 10:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No better source than the Economist article mentioned above has been found, and, as I have access to the full article, I can see that it only contains a tiny bit of trivial "human interest" stuff about Mashinsky himself. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your insights. What do you think of the following references? I think the following references definitely makes him eligible for a Wikipedia page. Looking forward for your insights.

Listing in Internet Telephony Magazine(Top 100 voices of IP Communication) with one full paragraph dedicated to him[1]

A full article dedicated to Alex Mashinsky on New Jersey Journal[2]

Listed in Business Insider's list of Top Entrepreneurs of 2011[3]

A complete article on Crains New York about Alex Mashinsky[4]

Winner of Einstein technology award from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu[5]

Technology Foresight Award from the Wall Street Journal and WCA at the International Telecommunications Union’s Telecom ’99 event[6]

Alex received the “Star of the Industry” award from the Computer Telephony Magazine for building the world’s largest PC switch and the world’s first soft-switch[7]

Another article from LightReading that discusses about Alex Mashinsky and his achievements[8]REMIAH (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced. The awards and "top 100" and "top 35" listings are all the kind of thing that one gets if good at self-promotion, and kudos to Mashinsky for being good at that, but not the kind of thing that denotes real notability. The information in those sources all seems to come from Mashinsky himself, rather than any independent source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Refbombing insignificant sources that provide passing mention, related topics (such as a company related sources), or PR sources, does not advance notability but does make the article "look" like it is well sourced and referenced. Consensus is starting to see through the Looking-glass effect (George Herbert Mead) of a savy person and good PR with an ability to portray the social interaction with others, and get it noticed, but generally only within a certain social circle that does not reflect the "significant" reliable sources required for article inclusion. Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2018 (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. J04n(talk page) 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Bartlett[edit]

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

Couldn't find any feasible third-party independent sources in accordance with the notability guidelines to back this article up. Sources at the moment are just small mentions that are affiliated with him. FiendYT ★ 19:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is the Sunday Times article and some coverage from Buzzfeed, both already in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write)

22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable as an "entrepreneur, investor, public speaker, internet personality or the Chief Executive Officer of influencer marketing agency Social Chain". The company is nn itself; it's CEO is even less so. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Weak Keep argument above: This is the only reference that has kept me from Delete. Still looking at WP:VERIFY. Ventric (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weak coverage does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2018 (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 Ilias Kanchan#Filmography. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ilias Kanchan filmography[edit]

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

Pure listcruft. No sources, could be original research and the films the actor starred on doesn't even have their own articles. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject does have its own article Ilias Kanchan but even then doesn't look like it passed WP:BLP either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:48, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ilias Kanchan, "one of Bangladesh's leading film actors" according to this source. --Michig (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This filmography article is apparently a split from Ilias Kanchan but without any attribution. The editor concerned has done the same sort of edit on numerous occasions, and has been warned about the processes involved in copying within Wikipedia and in splitting, but after receiving the warning has continued to make unattributed copies. I fear that a block may be necessary. David Biddulph (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I have restored the full filmography in the Ilias Kanchan article. --Michig (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ilias_Kanchan#Filmography; with the filmography restored, the current article is an unneeded content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, article is not long enough to require splitting Atlantic306 (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I also reverted some of his same type of edit. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippines Memory of the World Register[edit]

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

This article is no more than a WP:CFORK of Memory of the World Register – Asia and the Pacific. It contains a list of the Filipino documents listed in the UNESCO register, which is the same content that can be found in the parent article, plus what seems to be a long and unencyclopedic rant by the author about what documents they believe should be included on the register (a violation of WP:NOR).

Unlike the similarly-titled UK Memory of the World Register, which concerns a distinct national list maintained by the British government independent of UNESCO, there is no indication anywhere other than this Wikipedia article that such a list exists in the Philippines. The website of the Filipino delegation to UNESCO mentions nothing about the existence of such a register. Rfwang4 (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This WP:SOAPBOXing WP:ESSAY whose main contents are an attempt to convince the Philippines to make additional nominations to the register - listing possible events (and lets mind WP:BALL and reasons they should be nominated as well as chiding the Philippines for failing to nominate (the 2011 memory being nominated by foreigners).Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that there is no reason provided that this fork deserves its own article. While the Philippine government does maintain a register of cultural properties that includes documents, there is no specific register for documents. —seav (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(with some regret) Delete -- An article such as this might be legitimate, but this is not it. The article would concentrate on describing the four registered archives, whereas much of this is a soapbox essay on non-registered items that the author considers important. The alternative might be to prune of essay off it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone Like Me (novel)[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable novel; I couldn't find any significant coverage at all online, though as it's from 1997, it's possible that there might be offline coverage out there. The book's author does not have an article and does not appear to be notable either, so there's no possible redirect target as an alternative. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or Merge. It won a Children's Book of the Year Award: Younger Readers award in 1998, and received newspaper coverage in the Herald Sun and West Australian at the time. Appears to be used widely in primary school education (see here and here). I'd suggest merge would be more appropriate, but there is currently no article on Elaine Forrestal (who is clearly notable, with 35 Factiva hits to her name across 20 years). Kb.au (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trove (search) and Austlit records indicate notability, as it has been adapted into part of the school curriculum and has been multiply reviewed. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is involved with the education of children, and this can nver be a bad thing. While it may not be notable with "worldwide" coverage it is country specific, and this is needed for an endepth coverage sought on Wikipedia. I am into many things ATM but I would think (concern mentioned above on the weak keep, that that there would be enough reliable sources "out there", including achedemic coverage (I hope), and looks like as also mentioned in the weak keep !vote. The condition of article references (or lack thereof) is not important compared to what is available and not located. We do not have to delete at this time and can revisit later right? Otr500 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jumana Nagarwala[edit]

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

Considering there are just charges, this may be a BLP violation. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems properly sourced, and there is a little bit of sourced background information. If it’s not possible to gather more information about this person outside of the charges, then it can be moved to whatever this case is called – perhaps Nagarwala case – with this title as a redirect. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete we can post an article after the charges are resolved. This is indeed a BLP issue. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: BLP issues, and that Wikipedia is not a current news reporting vehicle. There are names of people in the article, other than the subject, and there is not enough in reliable sources to just "splash names out there". This is an encyclopedia and it is too soon for breaking news along with the BLP issues. Otr500 (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. This is a biography of one alleged event with only token biographical content. This person has no claim of notability without the not yet proven accusation. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2018 (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. If somebody wants to recreate it as a redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, feel free. – Joe (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Jacme[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources are not reliable enough for notability, and searching on Google does not give even a single result at all. Steve Quinn tried to draftify this, but the draftification was reverted by Malik Shabazz. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep My search found some coverage to boost the argument that WP:GNG is met plus being in the AVN hall of fame meets WP:PORNBIO.Sandals1 (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide sources that show GNG is met and the AVN hall of fame is not an independent reliable source as its function is to promote the porn industry and its actors. Notablity is not inherited. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "The sources are not reliable enough for notability"? AVN and XBIZ are the trade journals of the business in which Jacme was employed. She's a member of the AVN Hall of Fame, which (as Sandals1 wrote) means she satisfies WP:PORNBIO. And Lil' Kim cited Jacme in her song "Big Momma Thang" (ranked #13 among the "50 Best Rap Songs by Women"). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is no where near enough to meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent reliable sources cover this subject. Fails WP:NRV and WP:NBIO. All sources are industry related AVN magazine and XBIZ - this is not independent coverage. AVN awards are not independent coverage. Also, WP:BLP requires the subject's Wikipedia bio meet GNG standards and be verified as notable. With only non-independent coverage, as mentioned, this bio fails WP:BLP (which is policy) and WP:SOURCE (which is policy) because notability must be verifiable with reliable sources. If PORNBIO conflicts with BLP then BLP is the standard that must be adhered to. We strive for high quality articles sourced by high quality sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame. This BLP simply lacks any non-trivial reliable sourcing; the references are generally press releases, presskit pieces, and kayfabe. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG, Also dont see any point redirecting. –Davey2010^Talk 13:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame where the subject is mentioned. Article contains no relevant encyclopedic prose and significant RS coverage not found; see WP:NOPAGE. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NookieChat[edit]

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

An advertorially toned page for a nn business. Significant RS coverage not found. Article sourced to passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP sources. Created by Special:Contributions/KingofEnggs currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:05, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -It is website though the indeffed user mangled things. By the content of the sources and their reliability it totally fails general WP:GNG and specific WP:NWEB. One article from AVN is announcement of launching likewise the rest are short descriptions. No substantial coverage to establish notability. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:Corp; advert piece of a non-notable website/company. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above comments SeraphWiki (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Picasso[edit]

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

Only trivial mentions in sources. Of the sources cited, 3 are one sentence descriptions of shows he did, 1 is a 3/4 sentence description of a show he did, 1 is a column by the author, and 1 is an explanation of a trick he developed. See Talk:Tony Picasso#Source content. Fails WP:GNG. Awards mentioned are not notable so fails WP:ANYBIO. PriceDL (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources coming up in searches. Subject doesn't appear to meet either general notability or notability for entertainers. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable magician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Caperal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anjo Caram[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Echavez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 04:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delte does not meet the notability guidelines for sportspeople.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mat McCoy[edit]

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

Can only find trivial mentions. Fails WP:GNG PriceDL (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first 40 results of a Google search failed to find significant coverage of reliable sources about the topic. Therefore, per GNG, it is presumed to be not suitable for a stand-alone article. Thinker78 (talk) 07:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage whatsoever in mainstream media. Only trivial/minor mentions elsewhere. Does not meet GNG. Kb.au (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pupetter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 2 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashi Singh[edit]

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

This orphaned article fails WP:NACTOR: "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Actor has had a lead role in one (singular) television show, plus one minor role in a different show, and also appeared in a YouTube video. The one TV show she has had a lead role in is produced by a minor Indian (sub top 5) TV network. A search on Google News fails to find significant coverage in RS, with mentions of her limited to indianwikimedia and a few other non-RS sites. The only source currently in this article simply establishes that she is currently alive, and provides no further information including DOB, place of birth, or any other basic biographical data. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Chetsford (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:09, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delte one source is not enough to establish notability. I have to ask that people start a general review of actor articles. We have far too many that have one source, with that one source being IMDb, expliicitly called "not a reliable source" by Wikipedia guidelines. Some of these articles have been tagged with a request for better sources for 4 or more years. It is high time a major review of actor and film articles be undertaken.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Mi-na[edit]

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

This orphaned article may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. While we have two WP:RS that establish Shin Mi-na is, in fact, a real living person, neither of them provide any substantive information on her and only mention her in passing. We don't even have a source to confirm her DOB. Three years ago she published a poem on a small geocities-esque website (http://creationandcriticism.com/) and she has another poem scheduled to be published on the same website. Chetsford (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we lack substial coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NAUTHOR. Toosoon, as nom mentioned. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 1 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reid Lamberty[edit]

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. He's just an on-air journalist (as was I) for TV stations that do not have national reach or significance. He's also a freelance journalist, of which there are many in the US. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep primary host for 2 years on primetime news show on a major Boston TV station Atlantic306 (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Boston is one of 210 television markets in the country, and there's more than one news station in Boston. That speaks nothing to notability. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 16:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of 3rd party coverage of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of notability period; let alone for a BLP. A newsreporter, co-anchor, anchor, main news anchor but was fired, and made the circular job trail again. Last count was a weekend evening anchor. A 2006 article, and we could argue article longivity, but that would would likely invoke consensus by silence. The subject has no listed awards, no specific accomplishments or well-known works, and certainly nothing monumental as a journalist, so fails, GNG. Lands right in the middle of a series of day-to-day living and jobs, without even a qualifying single event, so "clearly not notable". Otr500 (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2018 (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. If any participants (or others) want a copy of the article to incorporate content into other (appropriate) articles, I can userfy or email you a copy. There seems to be clear consensus that this article, as it stands, violates WP:NOT. As an interesting note, there was something like 17 redirects pointing to this page, which I deleted. Wow. Killiondude (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disengaging from an abuser using the no contact rule or grey rock method[edit]

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

This is a how-to guide, not an encyclopedia article. Worse, it's a how-to guide giving advice on a mental health topic, which arguably makes it medical advice, something Wikipedia explicitly should not give. It may be possible to write separate encyclopedia articles about the "no contact rule" or the "grey rock method", but this page is not an encyclopedia article and cannot be turned into one. If someone has an idea what alternative outlet might be interested in this kind of content, moving it somewhere else before it's deleted here may be an option. Huon (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. Dolescum (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. HowTos are not what Wikipedia is for.L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pages that function in the most part as a how to definitely fail our first pillar. And a mental health how to at that... I really hope this gets SNOW deleted in the absence of a fitting speedy deletion criterion as this could be picked up by a victim and who knows if this is right... And good call not necessarily waiting the 7 days of a PROD, Huon. Undoubtedly not a valid search term and reason against preserving the article's history at that, so certainly no redirect, even with a merge (not that that's going to happen). Huon explains the rest better than I could. Happy New Year! /// J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 05:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also delete and split into two separate articles per Joe. No reason to preserve the article's revision history and even then redirecting would be biased towards one topic of the current article. And still, please can this SNOW? J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 20:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only how to info is in the grey rock method section and even that is truncated. There is specifically no such info in the no contact rule section. The article is primarily about the concepts rather than giving how to info. The article fits in well with the cycle of abuse, personal boundaries, don't feed the trolls, keep your head down, keep a low profile and lie low concepts. The hoovering section is specifically an adjunct to cycle of abuse.--Penbat (talk) 08:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Split and rename. I think there's an encyclopaedic topic here. Or rather two topics. It's really just the bad title that frames it as advice. Split it into no contact rule and grey rock method and focus on expanding it with references to psychological and counselling literature. – Joe (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Known medical techniques such as surgery, even psychological in nature, are encyclopedic. The fact that this is not strictly physical surgery does not exclude it from medical information. Psychological 'medicine' is most certainly of interest and not a how-to. Cirrus909 (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Woah. What? Psychological surgery? I hope you're not referring to psychic surgery. Are you suggesting that these self-help techniques are akin to surgery??? I don't understand what you're getting at with this comment. Apologies if I've misunderstood. Famous _dog (c) 10:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure, renamed at the very least While no contact rule & grey rock method might be subjects to include on WP, redirecting them to this article as it stands does not seem correct as I'm sure you could use these concepts on other people as well as abusers. Mattg82 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might go better on WikiHow ? DS (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Relies on some pretty ropey self-helpy sources and lifestyle journalism. If these two techniques are so notable, they should have their own articles with much shorter titles. Famous _dog (c) 10:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I proposed a move to Grey rock method a few months ago which was closed as No Consensus; I still feel the title is clearly non-encyclopedic and should be changed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Self-help advice for dealing with abusers" or delete (as I previously suggested). I oppose splitting, because that will result in having two low-quality articles instead of one (and will encourage creation of even more articles as additional techniques become identified). —BarrelProof (talk) 01:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every pop psychology self-help technique ever proposed, sourced to websites of questionable reliability like queenbeeing.com and lonerwolf.com, doesn't deserve an article in a serious encyclopedia. FireflySixtySeven (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well explained nom. It is ridiculous that an article can be created, in clear violation of policy (not having self-help articles) (and others) on Wikipedia, and then the work involved in "possible" removal. Otr500 (talk)

Extra comments: We have comments to keep the article, I suppose just to "push the envelope", even offering "Rename to "Self-help advice" (or delete)". Three references each on both "concepts make it seem well referenced but is actually just ref-bombing. A problem is the "combining" of Disengaging from an abuser, with one "method" the self-explanatory "no contact rule" and a totally different "grey rock method", is a problem when the combination is synthesis (even in the title), which is part of the no original research policy. Moving the title to "Grey rock method" would just be a shorter title and combining two different concepts. There should be no place on Wikipedia for any of this combining. I am not stating either "concept" is not likely notable on their own but this article and the self-help concept is more often than not biased. Both have controversies (like references, "no contact rule after breakup" and conclusion that it dosn't work and "Do You Sabotage Yourself With the Gray Rock Method?) but the "feel-good" concept of "helping yourself" will usually leave that out, certainly against WP:5P2. Note: I am against sites like lownerwolf (not reliable source) because the articles almost always conclude with advertising to buy, as opposed to just editorials: lonerwolf.com; COMPLETE WORKS MEGA BUNDLE, so a person reading and identifying with the reference, would need to invoke some form of "grey rock technique" to avoid being sucked into the bundle offer. Otr500 (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Whitehead[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL as League of Ireland isn't fully professional and not enough for WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 06:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Number 5 7 12:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:26, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our ridiculously low notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Child Lying[edit]

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

Indiscriminate POV fork, article is not focused on one topic, written like an essay. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 21:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm actually convinced that a topic such as this merits inclusion on Wikipedia and could even be expanded to include the effect of being part of a certain demographic and the consequent behavior, e.g. race, religion, parental income, etc. Carajou (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suspect a page on this topic is notable and worthy of inclusion, but I have to protest the name of this page. It implies "child lying" is some recognized term and as far as I can tell it isn't. This is a page describing the study of lying in adolescent years and has sources to that effect, but they don't support the page's implication that this is accepted terminology. Wikipedia exists to explain terminology for notable topics, not invent it. I think this page should be renamed if kept. Shelbystripes (talk) 07:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although I'm in agreement with Shelbystripes that the current name is not suitable. If this page survives the AfD, there should be a RM discussion about the article's title. Egsan Bacon (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject is notable as how children are raised obviously affects society when they have positions of power as adults. Moral education is an important topic. Needs some editing such as "what is a lie" heading/content after the intro is rather pedantic/repetitive. People know what lies are. It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.Knox490 (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It does not appear from citations that there is a recognised area of social science research called "Child Lying". Article describes several studies of children's honesty but does not make a case for the notability of a concept of child lying - article could as easily be called Child Morality, Moral Development or Child Honesty. Sections describing what a lie is do not seem relevant and there may be some original research included (eg the statement without citations, "The results of these experiments do not completely disagree with Piaget's findings and even complement and validate portions of his work"). Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I looked deep into this subject and article so bear with me. I found a complete build-up of an unsourced or under-sourced collection of synthesis resulting in original research. This is what is to love about the many branches (disciplines) of psychology covered on Wikipedia. This "study" (research/article) concerning an area of Child psychology, a branch or specialty of "developmental psychology", is interesting but where are the sources to actually back up the subject? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extra comments: The issue is that we (Wikipedia/editors) can place a few references on an article with a made up name, delve into the psychology side that makes it seem "official", interesting, or factually relevant, lets make it a C-class size but with only enough references (12 at this time) for a stub-class, and there you go, now we can argue why we should keep it.

The citation placement fosters and advances an article full of possible WP:OR. Open a paragraph with from three to five words, hit it with relevant (for that content) references, then follow it with a whole lot of content that is not sourced. Pretty cool idea if we can get away with it.

Now we have editors already wanting to expand this interesting "theory" or study into other areas and articles. This one could have been pieced together from a dissertation, and by "expanding" we can have more made up, unsourced, or wrongly sourced piece-meal articles. We can create another article revolving around "It would also be a good idea to research what religious authorities say about the topic.", as "research" surely can equal; make a new article. Want to see verified original research?: Look no farther than every single Results sub-sections. There are three of them with lots content with percentages and not one reference to back any of it up. Look at the third paragraph of the Significance section: "Both Piaget and Kolhberg neglected to observe the significance of how younger children fit into the equation of moral development. The experiments of Kang Lee and others have led to differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works.". I just looked up one of the four sources and what I see is a conclusion drawn by an editor, not the sources, and I would wager that will be the case for the other three. The sources have to conclusively back up content that is relevant to the subject (Child Lying), or it is just added "crap", and who are the "others"? How is "...differing conclusions that have shed new light on how the moral and cognitive development of young children works." related? To me the idea is interesting but someone please explain how we can actually "save this article". Cut it back to a lead only stub? Where should it go since the current title is certainly inappropriate? If notability is the main issue how will those be a solution? I can't even see an instance where we can ignore "the rules" and keep. Then again, a lot of things on Wikipedia don't make sense right? Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Echoes of War[edit]

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

I found nothing. At least it could theoretically be merged to the larger franchise. Coin945 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE - What do you mean "you found nothing"? Five seconds on Google: https://www.discogs.com/Eminence-Symphony-Orchestra-Echoes-of-War-The-music-of-Blizzard-Entertainment/release/7752791, https://www.destructoid.com/echoes-of-war-the-music-of-blizzard-entertainment-music-cd-announced-109562.phtml, https://kotaku.com/5084025/composing-the-soundtrack-to-blizzards-world, https://web.archive.org/web/20081030072413/http://music.ign.com/articles/923/923395p1.html Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes the GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:01, 5 January 2018 (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) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Them![edit]

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

A nothingburger of an article. Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 01:50, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously you haven't bothered to check for sources for this one. Topic clear meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. It has widespread coverage from reliable secondary sources. In one minute I found web reviews from VideoGamer.com, GamesRadar, IGN, Eurogamer, GameSpot, GameZone; and print reviews from Official PlayStation Magazine UK, GamesMaster, Play, Edge, Official PlayStation Magazine US. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's are enough sources to pass WP:GNG. The reviews of GameSpot and that of GameZone do show that. In addition to sources provided above. –Ammarpad (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know the article has had references added, but that clearly shows it passes WP:GNG Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:04, 4 January 2018 (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. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The B-Girlz[edit]

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

Not notable, does not meet WP:NMUSIC, no coverage other than local or passing mentions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is the best coverage I found. --Michig (talk) 07:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail on WP:GNG. SA 13 Bro (talk) 07:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This certainly needs referencing improvement, but the issue here is that they haven't been as active in the 2010s as they were in the 2000s (they still perform together occasionally, but far more rarely), so a simple Google search wouldn't be expected to find very much coverage — it becomes distinctly less reliable for finding media coverage that's more than about a year or two old. But on a ProQuest search for older coverage, I get 70 hits dating between 1998 and 2009 from a variety of publications not limited to Toronto alone. So there is enough coverage to repair this, and I'll take a pass at it later today. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: there's more that can be done here still with more time and effort, but for the time being I've got it to something quite a lot less advertorialized and citing 14 proper sources. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate Bearcat's improvements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 09:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Bearcat's valiant WP:HEY-bailing :) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Requires better references and more than just a stub, though. theatrelover2467 (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sock vote struck. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat's substantial sourcing and content improvements. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:50, 1 January 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends: Harvest Time Hop and Fly[edit]

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

A nothingburger. Found no sources. Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Metacritic shows 5 dedicated reviews including mainstream reliable ones from IGN and the Detroit Free Press. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also these reviews at Gamefaqs. However are any of these reliable sources? Game Vortex perhaps. That gives us 3 reliable sources, which is just scraping alongside notability. Hence my assessment above for the time being.--Coin945 (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im unfamiliar with it personally, but the WikiProjects list of sources (WP:VG/S lists GameDaily as a reliable source. Sergecross73 msg me 13:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The "found no sources" claim is not true as there are sources out there for this particular game as pointed out by Sergecross73. The articles/reviews from the Metacritic source are high quality and are suitable for expanding this article in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:FAILN. On the Metacritic source the Detroit Free Press link returns an oops! 404 error, and the Deeko review also returns a 404 error. Gamefeed redirects to an engadget search site, leaving only IGN. There is just not enough out there to pass GNG. It is easy to just list sites (all originating from one source) without checking them out. The article is sourced with an "External link" which is against policies and guidelines, and there is just not enough sourcing for notability on a stubby stub let alone anything else. Otr500 (talk) 08:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the links are dead at the moment, doesn't mean they're discounted from notability discussions. We're just discussing if the coverage exists. Metacritic doesn't just make up reviews. They exist, even if you can find it this instant. (Especially the Detroit Free Press, which obviously has physical copies in existence, because, you know, that's how a newspaper works.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to echo the above comments. The fact that some of the sites are dead does not negate them as credible sources; one could also try to find the references through a website archive. Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coments: I checked and it is not April 1st. Maybe it is a test? I was confused that I am debating policies and guidelines with two editors with a total edit count of over 46,000, and one is an admin. There are tags on the article for "no sources" and "notability" since July 2015 or almost 2 1/2 years. In my short time here I have NEVER read broad community consensus that we should keep an article indefinitly because there "might be sources out there somewhere in the universe", and if someone refbombs dead links we are suppose to either just keep digging, or let the article languish. I mean, crap, notability is not important right?

There is only one policy that can almost over-ride policy, which would be that we can ignore such silly things as policies and guidelines if it improves Wikipedia. Wait! What constitutes "improvements" can be subjective and there is that little thing we call consensus.

There are two "keep" editors ignoring policies and guidelines by what seems to me to be Wikipedia:wikilawyering. Two editors could not find reliable sources and stated thus, so they are branded as liars, and some dead links are pointed to, by these same "keep" editors, that the dead links are still considered reliable because there wasn't enough research done to uncover some correct links.

I have a splendid idea! How about one or both of the two editors, that wants to keep the unsourced stubby-stub, do the legwork instead of trying to pawn it off, and properly source the article. If not then two lowly editors, following the above mentioned policiies and guidelines, and a host of others, still find there is not "enough" to denote notability. "I WP:CHALLENGE all the unsourced content", (and it has been since 2015), and 2 1/2 years is far over any thought-up criteria for a continued article. This is really a content issue but **Y-E-S** a dead link can be discounted from proving notability. If a source can't be checked to verify that there is no original research, or that WP:NPOV is being followed, and that the article does not run afoul of what Wikipedia is not, it simply cannot be verified, and so the subject lacks notability for a stand-alone article.

The entire concept of WP:notability:"This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article.", and "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. **WP:NRV :

"The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally.". I did look and find the article lacking. --- Otr500 (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, cool it with the hyperbole and walls of texts. My argument was that multiple third party sources covered the game, and that it meets the GNG. That's valid and none if your ranting above changes that. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to echo Sergecross73's comment above. There are four reliable sources and the above argument for deleting the article is extremely weak and not based on policy. There is not reason to be rude during the discussion, as it in fact takes away from argument and your professionalism. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think Sergecross73 has satisfactorily demonstrated to me that this game has 4 reliable sources. I'm not so convinced it's as cut and dry as I thought it was.--Coin945 (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metacritic =/= reliable source. Most of those don't seem very reliable. I still vote delete for failing WP:GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IGN, Detroit Free Press, and GameDaily are all reliable sources per WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an incorrect argument as Metacritic is a reliable source that has been used in several featured articles. Also, Sergecross73's response is correct. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am iffy on the reliability of Metacritic. Often the metascore is based on many unreliable reviews and only one or two reliable ones. Anyone and their mother can make their own review site and get added to Metacritic. I add Metascores to articles because it seems to be Wikipedia policy but it certainly is not indicative of whether the game passes GNG unless the amount of reviews is large._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youre both right. MC is an RS, but not every website they aggregate reviews from is - there's a number of discrepancies between what MC uses and what WP:VG/S deems reliable. But no ones !vote was contingent on all of them being reliable - mine was more based around the fact that multiple very mainstream, not-niche/obscure websites covered it, like IGN and DFP. Sergecross73 msg me 00:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

keep AfDs are only supposed to delete articles on topics that could not be made into articles, due to failing GNG. This article does have reliable sources (The ones listed above), especially the IGN link. It meets GNG, and thus should be kept. It is not a way to force people to work on an article, nor a way to delete articles because it's been badly sourced. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:15, 4 January 2018 (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. Discussion to rename the article can be continued on the article talk page. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Division[edit]

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

This group isn't notable enough to claim the moniker Lion Division. Searches show it referring more to any kind of group or organization that involves lions. Compare to 106th Infantry Division (United States) which are known as the Golden Lions. Also 35th Signal Brigade (United States) which is known as Lion Brigade. Also Lions of the East Army in Syria. If this is to be kept, it should be renamed something like Division 3 (Sudan army). AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:MILUNIT. Probably should rename to 3rd division (South Sudan) (it also goes by "third division" and "division 3" the "lion division" doesn't lead to much, but with the commander name (Maj General Santino Deng Wol) you get to quite a few sources. Some sources: [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41].Icewhiz (talk) 16:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Icewhiz. That looks more helpful. The rename is a more specific name, and Lion Division can be used instead for dab purposes. Some of the sources you listed are just name drops though, they don't really go into the specifics of Division 3 other than a passing mention: they exist, have a headquarters or mention of a division leader. participatAngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC) updated 18:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are not great sources (I would prefer a balance of forces document, or something covering South Sudan which probably does exist as this is a hot conflict) but they do show this passes WP:V (including UN sanctions on the commanding general noting the formation). Seeing they pass V, I cited MILUNIT which would create a presumption of notability for a division (and even for a brigade or in some cases independent battalions).Icewhiz (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is this a division as described in Division (military)? I looked at the first five of Icewhiz (talk · contribs)'s links above (thanks, btw) and they didn't described the unit much.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 00:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my limited understanding, yes. It is commanded by a major general and has partcipated in the war(s) in South Sudan. The links above are not great, but they are in English and do show this unit exists. Even if understrength, this would still be a large unit capable on independent action.Icewhiz (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This (a better source) - [42] - has them (as "Third Infantry Division") with some 7,000 men. This source mentions some actions - [43].Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is the AFD outcome consistent with the discussion so far, including with the consensus that it should be moved, as well, which anyone can do after this AFD is closed. --Doncram (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the discussion to rename the article. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 07:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/former-yahoo-exec-thrilled-to-join-brotherhood-of-church

[2] ttp://www.digitalspy.com/tech/news/a810508/shazam-ceo-also-invented-toolbars-for-internet-browsers/

[3] ttp://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/news/article/Meet-your-neighbor-Rich-Riley-10800722.php

[1]

[2]

[3]