Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 January 26 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Schnell[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 23:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:12, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:13, 26 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) 16:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Eliza Spencer[edit]

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

Like her sister Lady Amelia Spencer (also up for deletion), she doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. You can't WP:INHERIT notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:19, 26 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 it seems to (unfortunately, IMO) meet WP:GNG. No opinion on a rename to Steak and Blowjob Day meme or a possible merge to Valentine's Day; those can be discussed further on the article talkpage. ansh666 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steak and Blowjob Day[edit]

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

Article's subject fails notability and article fails to meet reliable sources guidelines. Dictioneer (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Dictioneer (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not ready to offer an opinion yet, but I do suggest that anybody commenting on this AfD, read the recent DRV first, to get the full history. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Steak and Blowjob Day Meme , per SmokeyJoe in the recent DRV. In the alternative, I wouldn't be upset if it was deleted outright. There are no WP:RS which establish WP:V.
One WP:RS is Cosmopolitan, which doesn't state that it exists. The title of the article talks about Absolutely Horrible Jokes. The URL slug (which I assume is a holdover from an earlier title idea) talks about the best tweets. And the article itself only cites The Daily Beast, which is pretty low on the WP:RS totem pole.
Likewise, Huffington Post is a WP:RS for most things, but this is a short blurb in the Celebrity section, which doesn't say the holiday exists, it just says somebody is tweeting about it.
No WP:V, no article. But, it is clear that this has been making the rounds for 15 years (even if only in the Maxims and Cosmos of the world), so it does qualify as a meme, and we should talk about it in those terms. The lede (and general tone, info box, etc) of the article should also be edited to make it clear that we're not talking about the day, but about the meme. In the two sources I looked at in detail (Cosmo and HuffPo, above) both were careful to differentiate between the (non-existant) holiday and the meme. We should be equally careful. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I heartily disagree with the assertion that the subject fails either notability or sourcing requirements. Saying something does not make it true. The requirement for notability is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. The article includes 24 references, all of which are from reliable, notable, independent and differing sources. All references are specifically about the meme/day. The sources include Bild, LA Weekly, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Gothamist, the Daily Mirror, and notable feminist writer Feminista Jones. You can see them on the article. That, clearly, ensures the notability requirements are met. There are also many other sources out there (as per the article talk page and the DRV discussion) yet to be worked into the article. I would like the nominator to be able to provide his/her rationale as to why he/she considers all these sources to not be reliable, and back up their unfounded assertion that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. I expect a number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes on this AFD and trust that the closing administrator weighs them appropriately. Disclosure: I am the one who rescued this article and took it through DRV, where there was a strong consensus in favour of allowing recreation and where neither the notability or the reliability of the sources was disputed. fish&karate 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, welcome back to Dictioneer, whose second edit in the last three years was to nominate this article for deletion. I disagree with you strongly on this, but it's always nice to see a returning editor. fish&karate 09:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No real objection to rename, although we have many, many articles about internet memes that don't end in the word 'meme'. fish&karate 08:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudging keep (with many sighs and eye rolls). Although this sounds like the sort of thing that was made up in school one day, it does appear to have staying power and sufficient coverage to ensure notability has been met. It appears to have gained some coverage in both popular and academic presses, as demonstrated by the fine sourcing. The article as it currently stands could better contextualize the topic as a cultural phenomenon in the lead, but I can not support deletion based on subject matter alone. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding of the process (as Fish points out, I’m not a very active or experienced editor) is that as the nominator I don’t get a(nother) vote, but that I can supply more information in support of my position. My reading of WP:V suggests there are 3 components for source reliability: 1) the publisher of the article, 2) the author of the article, and 3) the article itself.
    • 1) Quality of publications: Fish listed a set of sources on the article’s talk page, many of which were used. The original draft author, Wikisaurus, commented that he had serious doubts about their quality, and I concur. Most publishers of the sources cited in the article are blogs, social media, lifestyle, and community sites, none of which qualify automatically as reliable sources under WP policy. The next largest group of sources are online tabloids, which WP policy cautions about using as reliable sources. The last group are the 3 websites devoted to the topic itself, disqualified because they aren’t independent. There are no academic publishers on the subject.
    • 2) When listed, most authors were freelancers, bloggers, or social media commenters specializing in food & drink, lifestyle, and/or sexuality topics. This doesn't disqualify the source but neither does it strengthen the case for it.
    • 3) Wikisaurus also noted that the authors speculated about the subject rather than report news about it. I haven’t found a single source that reports an actual observance or quotes a participant. In fact, many either assert that it’s fake/made up or include caveats such as “it’s unclear whether anyone has actually observed it.” Other ordinarily reliable sources, including the Huffington Post article (category, “Weird News”), simply summarize tweets and other social media posts. No one reported the subject as factual content. The closest I found were articles that, assuming the existence of the subject (and remember, many contained caveats about whether it existed), either gave opinions or summarized opinions found on social media.
    • Since there are 24 sources, I won’t go through each one here. As I get time over the weekend I’ll add a section to the article’s talk page and itemize each source and the particular problem I see with it.
Dictioneer (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Steak and Blowjob Day meme and keep. (Lowercase meme). It is not an “unofficial observance”, but is fake. It is only a meme. The article’s lede 1st sentence is wrong, 2nd is right. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    If not renamed, then delete As titled it fails WP:V; under the current title it constitutes a hoax, misleading, irresponsible, moves Wikipedia into disrepute. --SmokeyJoe (talk)
  • Keep per TeaDrinker et al. (and sharing TeaDrinker's begrudgingness). The article appears to meet notability standards. I'm currently neutral with respect to SmokeyJoe's proposed move – I'll have to give that one some thought. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyBallioni's comments at the most recent deletion review. I was fixing the past deletion discussions template box on the article's talk page and it gave me occasion to look at the last deletion review in greater detail and I can't help but agree with TonyBallioni. This article certainly meets most of the notability standards, but that isn't the only issue to be assessed at AfD. WP:NOPAGE is clear that, given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, some topics do not warrant a standalone article. This topic would be much more suitably covered by a sentence or perhaps even a paragraph in a broader article about BS holidays and/or by a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article in a section about cultural perceptions of Valentine's Day. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clearly isn't encyclopaedic content. The wall of text above demonstrates that this is being forced on the encyclopaedia. However if it remains then it must move to meme, as there is no day. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this clearly isn't encyclopaedic content. Then do enlighten us, because that's evidently not "clear" to many of the participants in this discussion.
The wall of text above demonstrates that this is being forced on the encyclopaedia. Does discussion = forcing? Or are you suggesting that the participants in this discussion lack free will? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- I voted to relist at the DRV because I thought the sourcing was weakish but plausible, but I expected to vote delete in the coming AfD. Now I find myself surprised that the sourcing actually is sufficient. Hm. Reyk YO! 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Surely sourcing oughtn't be the only thing considered. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also have this wonderful shortcut that I just discovered today WP:BADIDEA, which apparently is policy, and applies in droves here. As a side note, this might be my new favourite policy shortcut. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it very much either, but that alone isn't reason enough to make me !vote delete. Reyk YO! 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:IDONTLIKEIT take precedence over policy? And would you agree, then, that sourcing and verifiability is not the only thing we should be considering here? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a place for shitty gag holidays that just happen to get human interest press because of a funny name. The GNG is not a right to inclusion, it is a rebuttable presumption, and as my IP friend above points out, this seems to be the perfect application of WP:NOPAGE. There is no compelling reason to have a standalone page, and plenty of reasons to delete (I urge anyone with admin goggles to look at the deleted histories to see what will inevitably happen here.) At most, we can give it a sentence in another article, and there is no reason to keep the text history here. I'm sure I'll get IDONTLIKEIT rebuttals, but as I'm fond of pointing out, every policy and guideline is effectively IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT: at some point, consensus is commonsense. When we deal with the question of what is and isn't encyclopedic content (and thus what is indiscriminate), we are ultimately coming down to value judgements as to what does and doesn't pass the smell test. This doesn't pass that test, and in accordance with the notability guideline, it shouldn't have it's own article, even though it may meet the strict wording of the GNG. That alone is not enough to guarantee an article, and we have plenty of reasons to go with the other options available under our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you're saying is "even though it meets the GNG it shouldn't have an article because I don't want it to". Yes, you're right, that is indeed wholly an argument based on your personal dislike of the topic, and should be ignored by the closer of this AFD. fish&karate 08:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying that the text of the notability guideline is absolutely clear that the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion, and arguing that there are good reasons to delete it based on rational argumentation, which we are supposed to take into account in these conversations. Keep because I believe in the GNG even though I think we shouldn't have this article is a much less rational position, and should be completely ignored. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the Keep points made by the above editors. Sources are adequate, which is enough to Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT either, as a vegetarian and near-vegan, but that can't be used to delete a page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can. If everyone agrees it is a horrible subject that we don't want a page on, but can't find a policy reason to delete it, then we have a consensus to delete. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are adequate, which is enough to Keep. Is sourcing really the only thing that should be considered at AfD? Because our policies beg to differ. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I agree with Tony's thinking above but respect the effort Fish has put into this. A possible compromise: Fish has added S&BJ Day to a WP listicle on internet memes and included the strongest meme citation (the Feminista Jones blog post). What about deleting the article, “salting” the title (that apparently was its status for the past 12 years or so), but keeping the entry in the memes listicle with the Feminista Jones blog post as a citation? Dictioneer (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with this as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's roughly what I had suggested, though you would probably want a fully protected redirect rather than a salted deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objection to this. My main concern is that whatever we do, we make it clear that we're talking about a meme, and not a real holiday. We can do that by renaming this article, and some editing of the text. And keeping the listing in List_of_Internet_phenomena certainly makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I get the IAR arguments for deletion (any WP:N argument is clearly refuted by the sources). I'd not really object to a merge given that (based on IAR/IDONTLIKEIT) I don't see a need for the article. But I really dislike removing knowledge that is well cited as it can be useful to someone. And the meme merge target doesn't make sense to me--it isn't a meme in the modern sense (or the older sense for that matter). A page on "Made up holidays" or the like (Festivus could be merged in or at least linked to for example) might make sense. So keep for now, but willing to listen to merge ideas. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really in the same league as Festivus, which has sources in such mainstream media as CNN, Parade, ABC News, USA Today, LoHud, NY Times, NPR, Dallas News, Time, The BBC, NewsWeek and Newsday. And while I recognize that they're not much better than blogs, three sites that purport to list holidays include Festivus (Time And Date, Days Of The Year, and National Day). That's quite a step up from Cosmo and Maxim. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree which is why I suggested such an article would just list Festivus (sort coverage and then a link to the full article). Though per IDONTLIKEIT, I'm not sure which I dislike more the holiday discussed in this AfD or Sinfeld :-) Hobit (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not really object to a merge given that (based on IAR/IDONTLIKEIT) I don't see a need for the article. With respect, you seem to be creating a caricature of the argument. The issue isn't just WP:IAR but rather WP:NOPAGE. This is a subject that could be suitably covered by a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article. There could be a section about cultural perceptions which would discuss gendered dynamics surrounding the tradition using Steak and Blowjob Day as an example.
But I really dislike removing knowledge that is well cited as it can be useful to someone. Not liking something doesn't trump the policy WP:IINFO. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping us having a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article as well, discussing the gendered dynamics etc. etc. That is not a strong argument to delete this article. fish&karate 08:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a strong argument to delete this article. What about that comment led you to believe it was a wholistic argument for the article's deletion, Fish and karate? It was merely a critique of Hobit's argument. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing for the article's deletion, 142.161.81.20, and are waving WP:IINFO and WP:NOPAGE around as reasons to do so. Don't be disingenuous. fish&karate 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, Fish and karate. If you are wanting to have this discussion in good faith, you would best reply to a comment that is making a more wholistic argument in favour of the article's deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this lead to further consideration, given that almost no one advocating for the deletion of this article is doing so on the basis of insufficient sourcing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because those sources expanded the article further. Like I said. fish&karate 08:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article having been expanded is not in itself an argument against its deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a brief mention to Valentine's Day, which it is supposedly a response to; or to a list of memes as suggested above. There is some coverage, but most of it is meant as entertainment or in unreliable, tabloid-type sources. People should find something when searching for this, but we are not a vector for the propagation of stupid Internet memes. Sandstein 09:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Meets WP:N per a source review. Wikipedia is not censored. North America1000 09:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is sourcing the only issue we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only actual objection seems to be IDONTLIKEIT. In all other respects it meets our usual standards for this sort of subject--the references seem more than adequate. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only actual objection seems to be IDONTLIKEIT. And WP:NOPAGE. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing isn't ideal, but is sufficient. The first two sentences make clear that the day is a "satirical holiday", and "an internet meme, with little or no observance in reality" - which provides adequate context to qualify the subject. Alternately, if the page does get deleted, then I would support converting the page to be a redirect to the entry at List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is sourcing the only issue we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are citations the only issues we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could discuss your relentless badgering too if you like. Reyk YO! 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell us how asking someone a singular question once is "badgering" them. And I should note that you have yet to answer the above question. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asking the same question over and over and over and over regardless of the answers you get. That is badgering by any reasonable understanding of the term. Even the question above, which you allege I haven't answered, is just the same one you asked me earlier with slightly different phrasing and which I already did answer. If I were to provide another response, you would just ask it again with different wording. Do not contact me again, and I strongly suggest nobody else indulge this repetitive pestering. Reyk YO! 08:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - IDONTLIKEIT, but it seems notable enough to pass. BytEfLUSh Talk 03:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address whether a standalone article is most appropriate means for Wikipedia to present the subject (see WP:NOPAGE). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a dumb "holiday" but it's got enough sources to pass the WP:GNG. As for the WP:NOPAGE argument, that section of the notability guideline is primarily about if a topic would be better explained in the context of a larger page and if there's enough sources to support a standalone article. There's clearly enough sources to support an individual article, and understanding of the topic would not be improved by having this content merged onto some other page, given the nature of this "holiday". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability demonstrated by sources. Not all sources may be good, but at least some are. WP:IAR is not a trump-card when many others dispute the action based on other pillars. It certainly relates to other articles (memes and Valentine's day), but there seems to be enough to say to make a stand-alone article than trimming down to fit in a list or other larger topic article. And it's not strictly about either one, so having a stand-alone that links to/from each is a cleaner solution (intersection topic) than having the content in one and linking from other. As long as the article clearly states that this is a made-up/parody/hoax/viral-meme thing, WP:NPOV says we write what others write rather than choosing what is real and true or what we think is important. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 2 February 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 pending the resolution of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation of adjectives. ansh666 20:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bayesian[edit]

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

We do not disambiguate phrases with the same adjective Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is important to have a link target for "Bayesian", as it is a likely source of ambiguous wikilinks. If this is supposed to be a partial disambiguation, as the first comment claims, what is the full disambiguation that it should be merged into? And I think the nomination statement "we do not disambiguate adjectives" is blatantly false. When we do disambiguate adjectives, we want the disambiguation page to list the likely meanings of the adjective, as this one does. However, I would have no strong objections if some purist for keeping disambiguation pages exactly in some specific format that this one doesn't quite fit were to turn this into a {{sia}} instead of a {{dab}}, by changing the little template at the bottom and otherwise leaving it unchanged. After all, {{sia}} seems to be what we do to avoid struggles like this one between editors who think disambiguators should serve a useful purpose and those who think disambiguators should list only exact matches to a complete title. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PROCEDURAL KEEP. I found out this is a generic issue, so I started Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_of_adjectives. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes or soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no strong opinions about what to do in general about pages whose titles are adjectival forms of mathematicians' names. (That's just an acronym too far for me.) But in this specific case, we do have the List of things named after Thomas Bayes. I'd be fine with redirecting Bayesian to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, since they serve the same function, and the latter is the more inclusive of the two. Alternatively, we could keep Bayesian, and merge List of things named after Thomas Bayes into it. This would make the situation parallel with Newtonian, Pythagorean, Copernican, Lagrangian, etc. I feel like there is enough variation in practice about whether people use the noun or the adjective form that including "Bayes" in the Bayesian page would be fine. (E.g., both "naive Bayes" and "naive Bayesian" are widely attested in the literature.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate and very helpful disambig. page, and it is completely consistent with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages. Such pages are "are designed to help a reader find Wikipedia articles on different topics that could be referenced by the same search term". My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep e.g., per arguments of David Eppstein. Note that the first two items, Bayesian probability and Bayesian inference, are two broad general (and distinct) ways that the term Bayesian may be used. For those two items the page is functioning very much as a standard disambiguation page, and it would be senseless to bury them in a long list of "things named after Bayes." The items in the longer list are more specific, more like applications or developments of one or other of these two senses of Bayesian. Those could arguably be relegated to a separate list page, but it is far more coherent and helpful to keep them here on this page. —Gpc62 (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a disambig page, which is natural for this term. No need for a redirect. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes as these two serve the same purpose; no point having both. Tayste (edits) 00:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, since the two are duplicating the same functionality and the list is more complete and more informative. Reyk YO! 14:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes, and do the same with Newton, Pythagoras, etc. They mostly violate WP:PTM. Granted, Bayesian has two legitimate entries, but there's not much point in having two articles that do the same thing. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of things named after Thomas Bayes. I've checked both articles, and Bayesian duplicates everything in 'List of things..' though the latter contains additional article names not in 'Bayesian'. No justifiction in two identical articles, but the Redirect itself will serve a useful purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the second relist. The first relist landed pretty solidly on redirect, which has the benefit of not running counter to the WP:PTM consensus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is consensus for redirecting, then this should actually be a merge: the dab page singles out the two topics most likely to be the intended referent of "Bayesian"; at the proposed target these are currently buried within the long list. – Uanfala (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, both procedurally and per David Eppstein's argument. Since the nominator !voted PROCEDURAL KEEP, I think the nomination is withdrawn and thus should be speedy kept. As to JHJ's comment: while the first relist viewed in isolation favoured redirect, the discussion until the second relist viewed in its entirety was balanced between keep and redirect. And, as I argued before at the discussion at Disambiguation of adjectives started by nominator, "one cannot categorically state that WP:PTM 'formally applies to some dab-like page with an adjectival title", but that instead "[i]n all cases, application of editorial judgment is required". My editorial judgment in this case is that keeping the page is less confusing and more helpful to the reader than redirecting it to any of the proposed targets.  --Lambiam 19:07, 27 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 Flanging (at least entries with proper sourcing, etc.). ansh666 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of recordings with a flanging effect[edit]

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

Some illustrative examples and a short timeline can be at flanging but creating an exhaustive timeline of a sound effect is trivial and virtually impossible. Note that some of the entries are even accidental flangings put to record: there is virtually no discrimination for this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 04:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is in "list of ...." format which is discouraged on Wikipedia. However, there is good sourcing in the article, so I'm not going to recommend deletion.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well written, good examples. --RAN (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this article should really be retitled List of recordings with a flanging effect as "timeline" implies the development or change over time. Richard3120 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname as just suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if there's anything worth merging, merge to Flanging. The earliest examples are of course noteworthy, the rest are a fairly random and indiscriminate selection from literally thousands of recordings that have used the effect. --Michig (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or maybe merge with Flanging if there's anything worth merging. WP:LISTN says that a list topic is notable "if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I was only able to find one (borderline reliable) source which discusses a set of famous songs which feature flanging (and phasing). I don't think one source is enough to support a stand-alone list. In response to the above comments that the article is well sourced, I don't think any of the sources discuss recordings with flange effects as a group or set. They are all to do with the specific song that is being referenced. Also, many of the references don't even contain the words "flange" or "flanging"! Take [1] and [2], for example, which mention "phasing", but not "flanging". I agree with Richard3120 and Peterkingiron that, if the list is kept, it should at least be renamed from "Timeline..." to "List...", because even the one source I found doesn't present a timeline. Braincricket (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Flanging. The information has encyclopedic value, but doesn't warrant its own article.--Rpclod (talk) 01:39, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Fino[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and lacks secondary sources. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Become a New Page Patroller! (distænt write) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article is a mess. Subject seems to be primarily known for being an informant on organized crime in a series of trials ([3] [4]) - I would argue that he fails WP:BLP1E.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 28 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) 14:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barjati[edit]

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

Fails our notability guideline. I fail to spot any hits other than in unreliable Raj-era sources/listings and mirrors of both Raj-era sources and/or Wikipedia. Raj-era sources and those that derive from are unreliable per numerous RSN discussions.Winged BladesGodric 09:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Winged BladesGodric 09:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 10:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Education, Population, and Development by Yoginder Paul Chathley

(1995): "Similarly, there are 'gotras' among Khatris (Barsain, Bargate, Changend, Thusra, Bhander), Rajputs (Agasni, Lalhal), Thakurs and Rathis (Gharti, Sakhotru, Barjati, Kulai)." Also noted elsewhere in sources over many decades. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@FloridaArmy: what other sources? If they're from the British Raj era, they're not reliable. Your mention above is just that, ie: a mention in a list. It does not come anywhere near satisfying WP:GNG, which needs a degree of in-depth coverage. - Sitush (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, noting that any book which contains In Kangra the Rathi als are said to be Barjati, Kulai, Gharati, (a Khatri al in Chamba) and Sakhotru. The Rajas used to confer the janeo on Rathis in return for presents and senices, and this is why some of them still wear it.(OCR grab) is derived wholly from Horace Arthur Rose who is unreliable due to the same Raj-era problems.Winged BladesGodric 05:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are some modern references - e.g. [5] and maybe [6] seems modern. Older - [7] [8] [9] [10]. Reliability of these sources aside - none of them discuss the subject in any depth - it's all list style reporting, mainly as part of Rathi (or Rathis) - which could possibly be a valid redirect if it existed.Icewhiz (talk) 07:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here establishes notability and why it should have a separate Wikipedia page Hagennos (talk) 05:18, 26 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Gan[edit]

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

Not meeting minimum notability requirements as per WP:NACTOR. Not enough references in reliable sources to verify notability, hence, failing at WP:GNG. Hitro talk 12:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He certainly does not meet GNG so we are left with assessing him under NACTOR as mentioned by nom. As he has no awards and has not been the lead in any major films, he doesn't qualify. Of course, if this changes in the future, the article should be open to being recreated. DocumentError (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication that he has ever appeared in a notable production, let alone in a significant role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't care about this subject, but it is worth checking out the articles listed at the Philippine Star. These won't come up in a typical google search, but provides a list of reliable sources. Someone else can decide if they're relevant here.Jacona (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone willing to review possible sources from Jacona's search?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources are insufficient to establish notability. Many of the top links in Jacona's link apparently refer to other people with the same name. I'll concede, though, that since the actor is Filipino there might be sources out there that aren't easy to find by an English-only speaker like me. TimBuck2 (talk) 21:44, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tess Taylor[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. Cyber Girl of the Year honour is not significant and well known; the article on the program has been deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). Does not meet WP:NACTOR either as the roles are all minor. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 03:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: to have a character based on her in a Sofia Coppolla film seems notable enough. PamD 10:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on this AfD, but re: this "keep" vote. A character based on her is only there insomuch that one of the real life members of the "Bling Ring" thieves is this subject's sister, Alexis Neiers, and the film simply chose to fictionalize one of it's essential characters as having a sister who was also involved but didn't get caught. I don't find this any more notable than any other tangential character based on a real life counterpart, e.g. if a character based on a real person is shown in scenes with their high school principal, that doesn't automatically make the person's real life high school principal notable. Also, the source for this, Yahoo Entertainment, is of dubious significance. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited from a notable movie. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep After declaring I have no opinion in the comment above, I googled just enough to form an opinion! The subject was a principal on a short-lived reality program but did receive tabloid-level attention for tangential real-life problems. While I personally wouldn't consider this subject to be of encyclopedic importance, sources--however frivolous--do exist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coverage in tabloids for tangential real-life problems is not "significant RS coverage" as required per BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non notable porn actress, Hasn't won any notable/significant awards, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010Talk 17:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not notable. Tabloid interest is the definition of unencyclopaedic. Spartaz Humbug! 10:06, 27 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) 14:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CSI Leasing, Inc.[edit]

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and is only mentioned in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 01:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indicia of independent encyclopedic notability. Also, it is odd that this is a "wholly owned subsidiary of Tokyo Century Corporation", but the latter company has no Wikipedia page at all. If it did, and was supported by sources, I would say to merge this up there. bd2412 T 18:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May be of regional interest. Also, I've added an entry for Tokyo Century Corporation. grbrumder T 20:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • That entry has been speedied by another administrator. bd2412 T 18:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the only reference is essentially an online press release. Not enough to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 01:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability, references fail to meet the requirements for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG. HighKing++ 16:36, 29 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 via WP:CSD G5. (non-admin closure) —PaleoNeonate – 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steel man[edit]

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

A non-notable neologism. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Keep It has received notable coverage.Valkyrie Cain (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 09:07, 28 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Band Association Hall of Fame of Distinguished Band Conductors[edit]

National Band Association Hall of Fame of Distinguished Band Conductors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sourcing found, just passing mentions of people being inducted. Prod declined due to previous prod in 2008. Turns up <400 Google hits and nothing on Books. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has 19 notable members listed, already has a number of references Atlantic306 (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are all primary or passing mentions. They're just university pages saying "so and so was inducted". Notability is not inherited from notable members. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Did you actually read the sources? Can you give a specific example of a reference that is a university page naming an inductee? –dlthewave ☎ 03:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source #10 is one of those. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discussed in >2 independent sources Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as discussed in <2 independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:20, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as discussed in >2 independent sources of presumed reliabiity. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So where are these sources then? let's look at the ones in the article.
1 - orgs own website, not independent
2,9,10 - orgs host, not independent
3 - page of inductee, not independent, passing mention only
4 - primary, not an independent reliable source, only mentions that someone was inductee, no other mentions
5 - page of inductee, not independent, passing mention only
6 - deaddead, not an independent reliable source
7 - deaddead, not an independent reliable source
8 - dead, may be this which only has a passing mention, not an independent reliable source
11 - shop, not an independent reliable source, passing mention only
So zero in the article. If my maths is correct that is <2. So not in the article then
So where are they hiding? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful if the keep voters could identify the specific independent sources in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no authoritative, independent references are provided that demonstrate that the subject itself (the Hall of Fame) is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dead links do not advance notability| and I could not find more than primary sources. Having "100" reportedly notable members does not give inherited notability either nor does passing mention. The subject would actually be the National Band Association Hall of Fame except there is no notability per ORG. A non-notable subject should not be used as reason to start many biographies and especially WP:BLP's that are held to a higher standards. Otr500 (talk) 09:16, 30 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. Consensus is it fails gng Spartaz Humbug! 14:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Fardelmann[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Sources on page are not independent and the one that is fails WP:GEOSCOPE, and doing a search no sources could be found that were independent or not routine coverage. Also fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY. DJSasso (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for a woman to meet WP:NHOCKEY? PamD 10:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah playing at the world championships/olympics. Though the olympics is really more NOLYMPICS. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 00:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she did not meet the requirements needed for an article about her. Also a woman would be eligible to pass WP:NHOCKEY if she qualifies as a coach or manager and passes the needed requirements. Deadman137 (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Wolfson5 (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this athlete played in top-division pro American hockey league. Looks like there are additional references in a basic Google News search. Article could use improved referencing and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except there are not. I went through every single one in Google News. And the vast majority of them are blogs. Those that are not blogs are passing mentions in stories not about her. In no way does she have the sources to meet WP:GNG. If you somehow found some that meet the level of GNG by all means share them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you would also consider Blue Shirt Banter, an SB Nation outlet, a "blog" for this particular AFD, but why is it included on men's ice hockey articles and have content partnerships with Yahoo! Sports, CBS Sports, USA Today, Comcast and the National Hockey League (NHL)?
Hmlarson (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Blueshirt banter is a blog. It also fails WP:GEOSCOPE as it is a specific local blog. There is a difference between using it to source a fact and it being good enough to meet the requirements of meeting WP:GNG. I get it you will vote keep on any article that is a woman no matter how much they lack notability. I realize you are very keen on closing the gender gap and I do wish that could be the case. However, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We would delete a male player that was only sourced to the blueshirt banter blog as well. -DJSasso (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet any criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Using GEOSCOPE as a reason to delete is not a valid justification IMO. Nearly all references to sports figures are from local media, for example, Ottawa Citizen for the Ottawa Senators. That doesn't make them unreliable or the topic non-notable for using them. We would have a real issue for many articles and it would call into question the automatic approvals for many players who have not played in North America per NHOCKEY. Alaney2k (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geoscope isn't the reason to delete, the reason to delete is failing to meet GNG. There simply are no sources. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another problem with this nom is that it references NHOCKEY, which has not been updated to address women's professional ice hockey. Both the US and Canada pro leagues are the top-level for women's pro ice hockey. There should be, at least, a similar provision like that for the minor men's pro hockey leagues of North America, which are very similar in notability to the women's leagues. E.g. played x seasons. So, judging this article and person by that is not really doable. It's not defined, so how can you use it? It's not like it says it's not notable, it's just that NHOCKEY is unusable in this regard. Alaney2k (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NHOCKEY isn't just for professionals, it also takes into account amateurs and coaches etc. It covers all of hockey. Women's professional hockey isn't on there on purpose. It isn't that we forgot to update it, its that there simply isn't coverage for most and there is no easy bright line other than World Championships/Olympics that signify that coverage is likely to exist. In fact I believe we took most of the top players from the last few years (that didn't already meet NHOCKEY/NOLYMPICS) when this came up a few months back and went over all of them looking for sources, and pretty much all of them could not have sources found for them. -DJSasso (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, NHOCKEY is not applicable if it does not cover an article's topic. It would cover women's professionals if it was mentioned. NHOCKEY is merely a shortcut, a presumption of notability, not a definition of notability for any article. Alaney2k (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it does cover the the article's topic (ie women's hockey player). If they are a women's hockey player they have to play at the world championships. Don't forget women's pro players can play for their national teams. 11 players on the current US National team have played in the NWHL. What I think you really mean is you don't like where the level is at. -DJSasso (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Fardelmann may or may not fail under WP:GNG; on that, I express no opinion. But WP:GEOSCOPE applies by its plain language only to events. It does not apply to biographies. There is absolutely no prohibition on the use of local/regional sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Coverage in small town papers might properly be discounted somewhat in a rigorous GNG analysis, but feature stories in metropolitan newspapers with full editorial independence are the bread and butter of what most sports biographies are based on. Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very regularly sports bios are deleted for being only covered in local papers. Though we usually use the wording of WP:ROUTINE when stating it as opposed to geoscope in the same manor city council members of smaller towns are deleted when they are only covered in their local media. -DJSasso (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:ROUTINE does apply to sports biographies, but it does not contain a prohibition on the use of local coverage to satisfy GNG. Regional/local metropolitan dailies include passing references to athletes, but they also contain significant or in-depth coverage of athletes. The former coverage is ROUTINE, but the latter is not. Cbl62 (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Except that isn't how its generally taken at Afd or we would have many articles on high school or local junior athletes who get coverage as athlete of the week etc which often includes in depth articles. It is considered routine to cover the local star athlete. Now of course that also varies with the size of the city. Its much different to have an in depth article in a Los Angeles news paper than it is in a Bangor, Maine paper. -DJSasso (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had the same experience at AfD. In general, significant coverage in local and regional media (i.e, coverage focusing on the person as the subject of the article) is considered at most sports AfDs that I've encountered, though admittedly there are some editors (e.g., Masem, Johnpacklambert) who seem to take a more restrictive approach toward local/regional coverage. WP:NHSPHSATH is one of the few places where we have an express limitation on use of local coverage as an exclusionary standard. It is designed to avoid precisely the onslaught of high school athlete bios that you reference. Cbl62 (talk) 03:30, 2 February 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. Tone 16:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond failure[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't verify that it even exists. None of the sources appear to mention it at all; they appear to instead be about suicide generally. Online searches came up with nada. Possibly a "short film" of the YouTube variety. GMGtalk 19:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I cannot find any evidence of notability. The sources in the article do not mention the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an obvious hoax (G3)/made-up (A11) film per nominator, not to mention the blatant misrepresentation of sources used in this article, which only talk about the issue of suicide in India and none of them actually mention or acknowledge this film at all. 98.209.191.37 (talk) 18:02, 26 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) 16:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Address[edit]

2nd Address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal-to-not notable company; refs are the typical company website + some press releases + some churnalism + maybe one or two independent refs with some discussion... created by likely paid editor, worked on further by definite paid editor. It is saying "Just here for the publicity, ma'am don't mind me". Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2nd Address services provide a solution to people in need of a temporary furnished home! Etc.
I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did not take, so regular "delete" as being promotional 'cruft for a company wiht no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 26 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massimo Negrotti[edit]

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

I do not believe the article's subject meets WP:N or WP:ACADEMIC. Subject is a professor with some published books/articles, but doesn't have mentions in secondary sources or meets any of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC. I started pruning out some of the fluff from the article, so editors might want to check [11] to see how the page was before I started. There are a lot of links in the page, but most of them don't include the information supposedly cited in the article, or are dead. Even if it doesn't warrant deletion, there is heavy clean-up needed. I just don't know how much would be left if the article was properly sourced, as all WP:BLP articles should especially be. Angryapathy (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Angryapathy,

I'm not used to edit my page, but today I tried to improve it adding two bibliography sections and some academic links where my work is quoted. Really I do not know why these changes disappeared. Please, let me know. Best, Massimo Negrotti — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.234.169.168 (talk • contribs) 05:33, January 28, 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: is Professore ordinario equivalent to "Full professor", which seems to be what the current version of the page says? (It translates as "Ordinary Professor".) Or is it something higher than full professorship, such as a major chair? If it's the latter, then WP:PROF might be satisfied, but if it's the former, he needs, for example, a much higher h-index. I don't know enough about the Italian academic system. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: About it being a "major university", I looked at our page on List of universities in Italy#International rankings, and it appears to be ranked not so high. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, I can't guess what you mean by "full professor", or indeed by "equivalent", because I don't know where you are – in my experience, different countries apply widely different standards, and have different names for those standards, and comparison is often somewhere between hard and meaningless. I purposely linked to the Italian wp article on professorship so that people could make their own determination on this. Ordinario is the top level, above associato; emerito is grander, but means "retired", as in English. The university of Urbino is a national-level "proper" university ("Università degli studi") with about 14000 students and some 500 years of history ... why I am telling you this, you can read about it here? I'm not aware of any named professorial chair in Italy, but that could just be my ignorance; in Italian, exactly as in English, "chair" (cattedra) is synonymous with "professorship" – "he holds the chair in ..." means precisely the same as "he is the professor of ...". I've edited the page, by the way. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For "Full Professor", please see Academic ranks in the United States#Most common hierarchy, and note the distinction between Full and "Distinguished, Endowed or University". Then please see WP:PROF#Criteria, criterion #5. It's clear from your answer to me that Ordinario is like "Full", and it fails criterion #5. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, it is the highest level of university professorship in Italy. I submit that it is therefore "equivalent", at least in some sense, to the highest level of professorship in other countries such as the United States, "an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon". I note in passing, not as an argument here, that that criterion needs to be revisited to reflect a more global perspective than that of the United States, per WP:CSB. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here would be my question, Justlettersandnumbers to try and clarify. How many Professore ordinarios are at each university? Is it just a few, or is it a large group of tenured professors? If each university has 20 or more Professore ordinarios (I apologize is that isn't the correct pluralization for Italian speakers), we would be making thousands of Wikipedia articles for all the Professore ordinarios in Italy. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's equivalent to "Professor" in the US, not equivalent to "Distinguished Professor" (and at a mid-level university). WP:PROF and WP:GNG are what apply here, as they exist now, and the page is clearly one that should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--Fails our subject-criterion by a mile.Winged BladesGodric 06:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Professore ordinario is equivalent to the academic standing of "full professor" and no more. Full professor is the highest academic standing for non-administrative faculty, even in the USA. The "named chair" or "distinguished professor" in WP:PROF #5 refer to prestigious positions or appointments (i.e, jobs) for which a small percentage of full professors considered most important in their field are hired. This does not apply to Professor Negrotti, nor do any of the other criteria, nor does WP:AUTHOR, as far as I can tell. Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. --IamNotU (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My buddy just got one of those named appointments--unfortunately it's really not a cool name. But the paycheck is just that much sweeter. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean people in academia get paid?? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plus it comes with a complimentary Wikipedia article, and a bonus set of steak knives! I trust he knows enough not to edit the article himself from an anonymous IP... --IamNotU (talk) 13:06, 2 February 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artak Vardanyan[edit]

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

the sources are all either affiliated or youtube videos of the shows he appeared on or a blog. Fails WP:NJOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO the sources are the same as the Armenian page, nothing else of interest found in a before search. Domdeparis (talk) 17:41, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Waltz[edit]

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

Non notable book by non notable author Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 17:43, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan-ul-Hassan Usmani[edit]

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

Very promotional in nature. Nothing significant in WP:RS actually about him. His company might be notable but still depends. He clearly fails WP:NACADEMIC. WP is not for profiling purposes or promotional platform. His career is not significant for an encyclopedic entry. Störm (talk) 17:27, 25 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) 16:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yonder Music (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

Not a notable app, main content is "this app is free and available for ios, android". Does not satisfy GNG or product notability. The sources are nearly all primary (app store, google play store source), either the developer's web site or vanity sources or promotional press releases. Aftabuzzaman (talk) 17:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or move to draft. Agreed, does not meet GNG. —DIYeditor (talk) 20:10, 25 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. Both rationales are valid for speedy; copyvio, spam. bd2412 T 01:25, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMackulate Vision Gaming[edit]

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

Two man "company" that might make a game one day, that might or might not be successful, but hasn't really done much of anything yet other than set up their Kickstarter for the game they might eventually make. To their credit, they did get a fairly puffy interview in Fox Sports, an equally puffy interview on what appears to be a glorified blog. There's honorable mention in Heavy, but it's just reprinting an exerpt from the Fox piece. Overall probably WP:TOOSOON GMGtalk 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as promotional 'cruft on a nn company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH & the article is literally about how they are campaigning to raise more funds. I requested a speedy deletion under A7 / G11; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I've nominated this for speedy deletion as G12, unambiguous copyright infringement, with content copy-pasted from at least three different sources. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Well, good catch Justlettersandnumbers! GMGtalk 19:06, 26 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) 00:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Chana Radcliffe[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. All the sources that I find are social media and publisher websites Rogermx (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 20 years ago this article was kept, but that was back when we had much broader inclusion criteria. There are not enough reliable sources to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WorldCat shows that her books are held only in single or low (~25) double digits. Not notable as an author. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 27 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 Cyber Knight. Properly sourced content can be merged from page history. ansh666 20:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Knight II: Chikyū Teikoku no Yabō[edit]

Cyber Knight II: Chikyū Teikoku no Yabō (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. No reason was provided for the contesting, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the prod: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and all three cited sources are unreliable due to consisting of user-generated content. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Cyber Knight - I find it doubtful that this game is non notable, but sources are probably in old Japanese game magazines. I would probably just redirect it to the first game's article unless someone can come up with sources.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 17:56, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bruce (broadcaster)[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. This is probably the best source, but the google cache reveals it is only a very brief interview in a specialist publication. Other than that, this is the only source providing in-depth coverage of the subject, but it is in a local newspaper which is pretty useless for demonstrating notability. The other sources are primary, not independent or just brief quotes by the subject in articles on other topics. SmartSE (talk) 16:35, 25 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) 05:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Soccer 2[edit]

Battle Soccer 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:PROD. No reason was provided for the contesting, so I'll just copy-and-paste my rationale from the PROD: Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. No indication of importance, and the only cited source is unreliable due to consisting of user-generated content. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't really support and article if all that can be found is GameFAQs. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 February 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 move to draft by author request. ansh666 20:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sai Dheena[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Cant find independent reliable sources to support notability. FITINDIA 16:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in independent reliable sources and I don’t see evidence if the actor has played a major role in any of the film listed in the article. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR Hagennos (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can we shift this to a Draft, if you choose to delete it. As I have voiced many times in the past, finding coverage online for Tamil supporting artists is close to impossible (unless they pass away, and the media goes to town with it -_-) Editor 2050 (talk) 13:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Editor 2050: It’s not only about coverage, the subject in question also fails to pass WP:NACTOR and you must be aware that we can not have an article on each and every person appeared in a film unless he/she has played a significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions so I personally don’t think it can pass the AfC process to exist as an article anytime soon. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well in this case - he is notable, Sai Dheena has played leading antagonist roles in Kirumi and Jil Jung Juk, as well as prominent negative characters in films such as Theri, Mersal and Kodiveeran - and there's several interviews in Tamil up on YT - just little in print media. Maybe one day. Editor 2050 (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft cast lists are not always good evidence of prominent roles as they are influenced by star power and contract clauses. He seems quite active so may move on to better roles with more coverage relatively soon so moving to draft is a viable option Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 26 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) 05:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Race (video game)[edit]

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

Article was originally at Cosmic Race and was deleted via WP:PROD in 2011 due to having no sourcing or claim to notability. In 2016 it was recreated at this new name, but with the exact same issues. There are a few sources on the game out there, e.g. an import review in Next Generation, but not enough to indicate notability, much less support the article's grandiose claim of the subject being "notorious for being one of the worst video games of all time." Martin IIIa (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Martin IIIa (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think the PROD was removed due to the article already having been put up for deletion? It doesn't seem to make much sense. Article doesn't even hint towards GNG. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:21, 1 February 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) !dave 12:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Hill plane crash[edit]

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

No independently notable. Whatever can be mentioned about this accident can be mentioned on the articles of the notable passengers. Tvx1 16:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can see where you are coming from, but although this accident is principally notable because of Hill's death the incident itself gets plenty of independent coverage that isn't rolled up into a general article on Hill, and the deaths of the others and subsequent effect on the team do lend some degree of added profile. The article itself is already a good one, and worthwhile, and given the length of Hill's own article to include all of that information there (including maintenance logs and pilot registrations, etc.) would be overkill for this one event in his life; Hill is known for being a twice World Champion, not for dying in a plane crash. In addition, would we then have the Tony Brise page directing people to Hill's page for details of his death; a very odd and somewhat disrespectful way of handling things I feel. I agree that this article needs a better and more descriptive name (1975 Arkley Piper Aztec crash would be my vote) but it does serve a useful purpose as a standalone. This is similar to how the 2008 Biggin Hill Cessna Citation crash is used by the Richard Lloyd (racing driver) and David Leslie (racing driver) articles. In summary, I think the article as it stands is a useful addition to this encyclopedia, is a convenient neutral place to justifiably expand on the deaths of six people (two of whom have Wikipedia articles), and doesn't detract or get in the way of people wanting the more important information about Hill and Brise at their own pages. Pyrope 16:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all true, but it doesn't change the fact the accident isn't independently notable. It's just a crash of a private plane during landing in averse conditions. This literally has happened dozens of times in the history of aviation. It's not a major accident in any way and didn't not have any major impact on the airline industry. If Hill hadn't been flying and thus killing himself no-one would care about this crash of an Arkley Piper Aztec. If would be just one of many that happen throughout the years. It's not notable independent of Hill and the other passengers and therefore everything important can be covered in their articles. Of course information about the event can be mentioned on Brise's article as well.Tvx1 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if your uncle was a woman she'd be your aunt. The fact is that Hill was killed and there has been a lot of media and authorly interest in the accident itself because of that. At Wikipedia we call this interest 'notability', and we measure it (for want of a better word) by looking for significant coverage of the article subject in respected third-party sources. Lots of this exists for this incident, appearing in national newspapers, magazines, news organizations, and books, amongst other places. They all deal with the accident as a primary topic, therefore this topic passes WP:GNG quite easily, as others have mentioned below. You are flogging a dead horse here. Pyrope 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It meets WP:GNG easily and is a topic of interest in itself, beyond the bio details. If this were rolled into the bio article much relevant detail would be lost. - Ahunt (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. All relevant detail can be copied.Tvx1 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep: The crash has received significant enough coverage to warrant pulling all the material together in one article. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling for a snow close barely an hour after an AFD was initiated doesn't demonstrate much respect. Give people some time to contribute. There is a good reason why an AFD has a general running time of seven days.Tvx1 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: This editor who (If you asked around) has a reputation as a STRONG aviation accident deletionist says Keep below. Why? It has been the established consensus that any aviation accident article where someone wikipedia notable person died is a keep. This AFD was going the same way as this one (and after barely six hours) when the nominator withdrew the nomination. Steelpillow's call for a snow is a good call. If this AFD continues, who is the editor not showing respect?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1:Realism borne of experience is not always respectful of dead horses. There is also a good reason why WP:SNOW exists and my view has already been echoed twice. Please stay on-topic here and raise any further concerns over my conduct on my talk page. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The accident was not just noteworthy for death of Hill (and Brise) but a lot of fuss at the time about unregistered aircraft and iffy pilot licence and some rather bad decision makings. Some of this makes the accident of note as well as having two wiki notable deaths. MilborneOne (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any aviation accident article where a WP notable dies is an automatic keep. I also second Steepillow's motion for a snow closure. This article isn't going anywhere....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep - not only did this accident result in the deaths of two wikinotable people, the {{Embassy Hill}} has two redlinks, Ray Brimble and Andy Smallman. Thus that is potentially four articles. There is no point in duplicating the info over these articles and that on the team, when it can all be kept in one handy place. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't agree with the premise, but any crash with a notable person has been deemed, itself, notable in the eyes of the community. By the way, what is with the "oppose" !votes? We are not voting on an ITN entry or village pump proposal.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've changed the "opposes" to "keeps" per the convention for !voting in AfD's. Mjroots (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I've always thought that as the title of this discussion board is "Articles for deletion", the appropriate opinions (not votes...) to express were either for or against the proposal inherent in the listing! Pyrope 19:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Big hole in your logic, if the crash had notable passengers, it most likely be notable. - ZLEA (Talk,Contribs) 21:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – It's an established practice that air accidents where notable people died are covered in dedicated articles (see John Jhon Kennedy, Aaliyah, Buddy Holly and others), and for a good reason: they won't fit in the related biography, involve more than one notable person or simply how and why someone notable has died deserves specific, in-depth coverage. --Deeday-UK (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – For exactly the same reasons that Deeday-UK gave above. - Samf4u (talk) 00:40, 27 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Estrin[edit]

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

WP:Notability WP:PROMO Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Its important to remember that anyone can add to an IMDB profile. There are no other non self promo sources. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the references are independent, authoritative references. Even if the subject wrote for some notable series, nothing indicates that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO criteria.--Rpclod (talk) 01:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the article because I came across a bunch of TV show pages where the individual's name was mentioned or linked in the text and/or infoboxes. There are currently 13 article-space pages that link to Allen Estrin. I wouldn't have created the article if I didn't think that was sufficient justification for an article on the subject. Deli nk (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Can you share those "TV show pages" with us as they are not linked to the page and there is only one source that is not a promo and that link is a dead link? Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true, they are linked to the page. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Allen_Estrin. Deli nk (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You missunderstood me. I am saying there is not 3rd party television sources on this page in the refernces. You have not provided a single reference that is not directly involved with the source. The only one on the page again is a dead link. Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said I created the article because of links/mentions from several Wikipedia TV show pages. You said "they are not linked to the page". So I showed the list of links to the page. Deli nk (talk) 22:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. There are no 3rd party sources linked to the page. You did not say "Wikipedia TV show pages you said "TV Show pages." Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Jamesharrison2014 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I searched for reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the guy and could find none. If someone finds one, please ping me. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no significant coverage. Bishonen | talk 11:59, 31 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) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty work[edit]

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

An essay which aspires to the status of a dictionary definition. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is obviously written to argue a particular WP:POV, with vague claims like "Such products are often priced higher when marketed to women, who are willing to pay more due to the social pressure to appear physically attractive" presented as fact rather than as generalizations made by the cited source. Apart from such surmountable problems, the article subject seems amply covered by articles such as Cosmetics, and the actual content of the article is belongs under Gender inequality. "Beauty work" isn't really a separate subject.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOR. Tacyarg (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 10:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, Martin IIIa, and Tacyarg. POV fork of body image. The Mighty Glen (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:53, 29 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Body care[edit]

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

Nothing more than a fluffed-up dictdef of a mind-numbingly trivial concept. The idea of doing a dgree in washing your face is....O tempora, O Mores TheLongTone (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it is so trivial, why does skin care not talk about the full spectrum of products and activities? Besides, I have only just started. It would have been extremely nice of you to just lean back and wait. Don't you have anything constructive to do? -- Kku (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This could go to a draft until it is ready for mainspace. Potentially the topic sounds suitable, but its not ready yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I had already blanked this page and made it into a Redirect to Skin care, but article creator chose to revert me. My advice on their Talk page was then to enhance this page PDQ, or face a likely AfD. I'll give my !vote later, assuming it might now be speedily improved. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article as it is only provides a definition of what body care is. This is an issue, as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with SamHolt6. Tacyarg (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 06:54, 29 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good News TV[edit]

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

No coverage. Non-notable TV channel. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Of idle interest, but I'm struggling to track down reliable sources that demonstrate notability... or any sources at all, for that matter. The article itself isn't amazing, but it isn't absolute trash either. -- Cheers, Alfie. (Say Hi!) 21:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:38, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Applied Mechanics Award[edit]

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

Minor award, no independent sources. Article de-PRODded by article creator with reason "This award has become the stepping stone for the young investigator awards for mechanicians. And the recipients of this award have win other medals from engineering. People from mechanics society may concern the list of this ward. We recommend to keep this artical in Wikipedia." (On article talk page). However, this assertion is not supported by any source. Article creator also added 3 references, none of which mentions the journal. Curiously enough, the only external link present when this stub was created, a link to the journal homepage, does not even mention this reward. A Google search for "Journal of Applied Mechanics Award" gives, as far as I can see, only this article and a number of press releases of academic institutions on the occasion of one of their faculty receiving this award. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:36, 25 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 keep. Player has played senior international football. Apologies, I misread the article as saying her international appearances were for a junior team in Olympic games qualification. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Morales[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

  1. vavel.com - interview of significant length, suitable in working towards GNG. Needs more though to satisfy GNG
  2. ussoccer.com - routine match reporting from primary source. Not useable for GNG
  3. ussoccer.com - routine match reporting from primary source. Not useable for GNG
  4. mexico.as.com - Article about completely different players, trivial mention of Morales at the end.
  5. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
  6. marca.com - routine match reporting, trivial coverage of the player scoring a goal in a single match
  7. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
  8. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Morales is notable. She was a member of the Mexican U-20 team and a member of the Mexico women's national football team from at least 2008 to 2011. On April 2, 2008, she scored two goals for Mexico against Jamaica in an Olympic qualifying match. She played 38 minutes against the US in a World Cup qualifying match on November 5, 2010. On July 5, 2011, she started and played 45 minutes in a friendly match against the U.S. She almost certainly played in other matches at the senior level, but I don't have a reliable source for those. Yet.Smallchief (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I've added a reference from a non "primary source" about Morales participation in a match against the U.S. plus added Morale's appearances on the Mexican NT in the info box.Smallchief (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:37, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BNP Associates[edit]

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

The references provided are either published on the company website, based on marketing materials of the company or provide insufficient WP:CORPDEPTH. A secondary, fixable issue is that the article itself reads as WP:PROMO. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- blatant promotionalism for a nn company. Sources that come up are PR driven or routine notices. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indications of notability and worse, entirely promotional. Fails GNG, WP:SPIP and WP:NCORP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 11:55, 1 February 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 Puppet Master (franchise)#Puppet Master: Axis Termination. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Puppet Master: Axis Termination[edit]

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

non notable film that fails WP:NFILM. Nothing found in a WP:BEFORE a part from a couple of blogs and fansites. No reviews on rotten tomates for exemple. The redirect should be restored if not deleted Domdeparis (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 11:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't think it meets the "significant coverage" requirement. I found a lot of press releases and a few blog entries, but only one example of coverage in what could be called a reliable, independent source: an interview with the director on HorrorNews.net. I think it makes sense to redirect this article to Puppet Master (franchise)#Puppet Master: Axis Termination, and use the source(s) to flesh out that section. Also, if this article is redirected, won't it set a precedent for many of the others in Category:Full Moon Features films? Braincricket (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Category:Puppet Master (film series). Braincricket (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, !dave 13:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Braincricket. The only reference is an interview with the subject's director, probably as part of a publicity attempt.--Rpclod (talk) 02:02, 26 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. Tone 16:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Younus Dagha[edit]

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

no in depth coverage in RS. Saqib (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it per G5. Störm (talk) 15:47, 26 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. Tone 16:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Asad Hayauddin[edit]

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

no in depth coverage in RS. the BLP contain OR. Saqib (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it per G5. Störm (talk) 15:33, 26 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peter C. Brown[edit]

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

Delete - Run-of-the-mill business man (accomplished or not), no intellectually independent references, no awards that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:PEOPLE. HighKing++ 12:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:39, 25 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) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hillol[edit]

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

Having searched for both Adnan Faruk Hillol and Hillol, I was unable to find anything that would indicate notability, and therefore fails WP:NACTOR. The two films listed in his filmography might be possible redirection targets, but Mukhosh Manush is at PROD due to lack of notability and he's not actually mentioned in Chorabali. The only source that I could find that mention he was in the film was [12] but it gives no depth and doesn't look very reliable. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean Mukhosh Manush (film).--Auric talk 14:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Dan arndt (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We can't expect sources in English to be available in these cases. The prudent execution of WP:BEFORE should include searches in the relevant language, here Bengali. I don't speak it, yet with a little help from Google Translate I noticed this: subject is mentioned in the Bengali language article about Chorabali as playing a Police Officer. I suppose that's a minor character. His name (হিল্লোল) is unlinked. No article exists at bn:হিল্লোল and looking at the deletion log it never existed. You may blame me for implying a WP:OTHERLANGS argument here, but with many non-English Wikipedias often having a lower bar for inclusion of national subjects, I nevertheless find that a lack of article in the national Wikipedia often indicates that not even subject's fellow citizens have yet found subject notable for an article. Searching for "হিল্লোল" and searching main space on bn.w I think they are right, and I conclude that he does not yet meet neither our basic notability guideline for people nor the additional criteria for actors as having had significant roles in multiple notable productions. Sam Sailor 12:09, 28 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) 05:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khichar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. They probably do exist but I can find only mentions in lists, not substantive coverage in reliable sources. Khichar is certainly a last name but we cannot repurpose the article as a set index because we seem not to have articles for anyone who bears it. Khichad appears to be some sort of foodstuff but I'm struggling to find notability there, too. We cannot redirect to Johiya due to lack of sources. Sitush (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete--Nothing apart from Raj-era Sources/Lists.From Facebook etc, it's a last name but no person with the title has became notable enough.And, I believe the food stuff is Khichdi.Winged BladesGodric 09:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:46, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Johiya. This - [13] seems to be a modern (2006) reference. Several older references - [14][15][16][17]. However, for the most part they seem to be discussed as a sub-branch of Johiyas and both articles are short.–Icewhiz (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your first ref (Nijjar) is not reliable per consensus (pseudohistory). The rest are also not reliable per general consensus about Raj sources etc. We also should not merge something that isn't sourced and has been tagged as such for some time. What you have to understand in particular is that, for example, people created "fictitious" caste groups for amateur ethnographers of the Raj era. Based on their own family names, they're not dealt with now because they never actually existed/were never accepted by their peers etc. They not individually notable as hoaxes either. This has all been discussed in the past. - Sitush (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point to such a discussion regarding Bakhshish Singh Nijjar? I do see that other works of his (by the same Published) are cited on Wikipedia (e.g. in Punjab Province (British India)), as well as in google-scholar (though admittedly - not widely), and his stated bio (B.S. Nijjar, M.A.; Ph.D. (History); M.A. (Punjabi); M.A. MOL (Persian); Hons. (Persian, Urdu & Punjabi); is an erudite scholar and a historian of great repute. He retired as Director, Punjab State Archives & Archaeology, Patiala where he put in 21 years of distinguished service. He was also a member of Indian Historical Records Commission, and Curator, Historical Museum, North Platte, Nebraska, USA. Presently based in California, USA, he takes keen interest in historical research and writing on its various aspects. seems passable. If deemed unreliable, there are a number of other articles that should be cleaned up.Icewhiz (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not arguing with you - it invariably ends up being pointless. He e is regularly removed from articles by other people than me (perhaps also because he was a Jat, which de facto makes him unreliable for anything to do with Jats), and in any case the page of the book that you link to is a most preposterously slim claim for notability. It is literally a name in a list. I'm pretty sure he is dead, btw - 2011 or 2012, IIRC. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- significant RS coverage to justify an article not found. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources and consists of 1.5 lines of text. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with K.e.coffman. Could not find anything which justifies an article. Hagennos (talk) 05:22, 26 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) 05:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cookprint[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism: appears in a dictionary website in 2008 as a "buzzword" but evidently didn't catch on - no evidence of usage over the last 10 years. Article is just a dictionary definition. Redirect to Wiktionary. PamD 12:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the LA Times the authors speaks about the the ethics of eating, refering to the term "cookprint". Isn't it an evidance of notabilty?

link to the source: http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-ethics-eating22-2009apr22-story.html Lidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

and here we have some general meaning of the term, not related to cooking. Link: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/submission/10666/CookprintLidiia Kondratieva (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The notability of the subject isn't established by the cited references. Having to resort to pointing to an unapproved user-submitted definition at an online dictionary doesn't help the case. TimBuck2 (talk) 22:02, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Taiwan relations[edit]

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

there is nothing to these relations except lack of recognition, which means that any interactions between the 2 countries are very limited. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there's nothing substantial here in the way of relations. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This book on post-Cold War Taiwanese relations devotes an entire chapter to Latvia and the interplay of Latvia-Taiwanese relations and those with the PRC. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually quite interesting, Latvia was a short time the only country to have a diplomatic relationship with taiwan and china. Enough sources for WP:GNG: [[18][19][20]
I can't see the source Patar pointed out, but yeah, enough coverage even if may seem to be uninteresting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of recognition some time may generate more interest than friendly relation relationship. The source in the article and those pointed above will surely meet GNG. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 2 February 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) 05:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Ovalle[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

  1. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
  2. es.fifa.com - a lengthy interview with the player providing a reasonable level of coverage. Not sure whether an article on a player appearing on the FIFA website essentially to promote the FIFA U-17 world cup should be considered a primary source. Either way it seems to be insufficient on its own to satisfy GNG.
  3. economiahoy.mx - a very brief interview with the player containing little in the way of content specifically about the player as her comments are concerned with her team rather than herself. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY having not played pro football. Govvy (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the existing sources + a basic Google News search indicate WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY doesn't apply to the vast majority of top-division women's leagues - only 1 league last I checked. We should look into why that is.Hmlarson (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Contrary to the above claim, WP:NFOOTY is applicable to women's football – please refrain from making misleading statements at AfDs. Number 57 23:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For any editors new (and old) wanting to assess "misleading comments":
  1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Women's leagues VS.
  2. Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Women's football task force/Leagues#Active top-division leagues and national championships.
Hmlarson (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has no relevance to your claim that NFOOTY "doesn't apply" — it does apply. What you are unhappy about is the fact that only players from one league meet the 'played in a fully-professional league' criterion. You could have just said that rather than make a misleading claim about the guideline's applicability. Number 57 23:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • While some interesting points about no (or limited) relevance for WP:FOOTY with regard to women's footballers have been raised, I disagree with your assessment + instructions on how to communicate. Hmlarson (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's your choice, but if you continue to make misleading statements, be aware that such behaviour may result in you being asked to stay away from these AfDs, as per this recent discussion at AN. Number 57 08:27, 31 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arlett Tovar[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

  1. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
  2. mexico.as.com - very brief interview with the player about a goal she scored in one game, not particularly significant coverage
  3. sipse.com - Article summarising the Liga MX Feminil in general. Brief mention of the player, trivial coverage.
  4. marca.com - Brief interview with the player. Little content on the actual player herself though as she talks about her team rather than herself. Not sufficient coverage for GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 11:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Contrary to the above claim, WP:NFOOTY is applicable to women's football in all cases – please refrain from making misleading statements at AfDs. Number 57 23:09, 30 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. Seems like GNG is met here, going by the latest comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

K College[edit]

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

Entry contains out-of-date, inaccurate and biased information. The neutrality of the article is disputed, notably the sections on recruitment of staff at East Kent College, written with an obvious bias towards that institution i.e. the line "In comparison, East Kent College have recruited at least 40 extra staff since taking over the Folkestone & Dover campuses" as this is pulled from an August 2014 Kent on Sunday article, which may have been valid at the time, but is not at all relevant now. The alumni list features people who attended during the West Kent College era, not K College era. Original author of this entry has been blocked indefinitely.

There is an existing page for 'West Kent College (2014)' - which already makes reference to the K College era within its history. The detail from both has now been merged into one entry, for context. As a comparison here, the University of Gloucestershire page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Gloucestershire) does include reference to predecessor Colleges, but these do not have their own entries e.g. Cheltenham & Gloucestershire College of HE. Poggs77 (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a tertiary institution per longstanding precedent and consensus. AfD is about the notability of the subject, not the quality of the article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a valid rationale and you know it. Aside from the SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC, which you dubiously claim below does not apply, there is also WP:OSE. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, so you and the other deletionists do think it also applies to tertiary institutions? Pray tell where it says this and how my claim is dubious. But I'll add this if you insist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray explain why I am a deletionist. And why OSE does not apply. On recent evidence, you should resign your bit. - Sitush (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read the link I posted above. It explains all my reasons and has nothing to do with OSE (consensus over hundreds of AfDs is not OSE, incidentally). And please also explain why you think the RfC applies to tertiary colleges. "resign your bit"? How quaint, but I have no idea what you're on about. Are you saying I should resign as an admin? Because I disagree with you? How very arrogant! I wasn't aware that admins weren't allowed to express opinions at AfD. New one on me. Please point me to where it says that. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I don't support the calls for your resignation, it was you who started this off by branding Sitush as a deletionist and that doesn't paint any less-arrogant picture to me.Winged BladesGodric 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't honestly think it's unreasonable to suggest that someone who is trying to use an RfC on one group of articles as an excuse to delete another group of articles (and who claimed that saying this was invalid was "dubious") may be a deletionist. It was a statement of fact, not an insult. I would also point out that it's slightly disingenuous of you to say that I started this off!. I'd like to be able to post my opinion at AfD, as is my right, without snarky remarks from the same two or three editors who disagree with it, that's all. Voice your own opinion, fine. But don't try to claim mine is somehow invalid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not trying to do anything. I haven't even !voted, merely passed a comment because of your known misrepresentation of the RfC etc. I really don't care much forthe whole schools issue and rarely participate. It was your opening comment at the Drmies thread that got me involved on this occasion because once again it seemed to be a case of an admin not understanding consensus, which is worrisome wherever it may happen. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the RfC that Necrothesp so delightful chooses to ignore. And so clearly states that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not a relevant argument. The Banner talk 14:37, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry? Did the RfC suddenly mutate from a discussion about secondary schools to one about tertiary institutions? I hadn't realised that it was in fact secretly about all educational institutions! Maybe you'd care to explain to all of us where it says this? Because my reading is that it refers to secondary schools only. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--RFC or no RFC, this fails our gen. notability guideline and it is the onus of keep !voters to prove to the contrary rather than banking on a mixture of OSE and circular-reasoning.Keep--Per newly discovered sources. Winged BladesGodric 17:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out Because extant secondary schools often have reliable sources that are concentrated in print and/or local media, a deeper search than normal is needed to attempt to find these sources. At minimum, this search should include some local print media. If a deep search is conducted, and still comes up empty, then the school article should be deleted for not meeting the GNG and Editors are not expected to prove the negative that sources do not exist, but they should make a good-faith effort to find them.; which seems to put the onus on delete !voters to do a good-faith effort to find sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are not expected to prove..... And, whilst I drew a blank on search of sources, I couldn't rely that the sole keep! voter, prior to you conducted some sort of search, before chiming in with the one-liner.Winged BladesGodric 10:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the GNG. Without reliable and independent sources we can't write a quality article on any topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Since we're all accepting the RfC, let's accept the close in its entirety, including the parts where it says that a deeper search must be conducted before deleted for not meeting GNG - At minimum, this search should include some local print media.. Certainly not every random degree-mill esque school with say a hundred students should be kept; but a college that had 25000 students...
I'll rescue this rationale with some sources, that should be enough..[21][22][23](but from one publication)
[24][25]. There's also a ref to "Private Eye no 1355 p31" in the article. Dunno how much coverage is there, though. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep. I'm a bit confused by this AFD and the delete !votes. The nominator did not advance an argument for deletion, admitting that West Kent College (2014) exists as a merge/redirect target per WP:ATD, so there is that. But I'm also confused by the "Without reliable and independent sources" and "fails our gen. notability guideline" !votes. For one, AFD is not a place you just dump an article and challenge others to do the WP:BEFORE work you didn't do yourself. But be that as it may, let's just google for five minutes, shall we?
  • "K College to split after review". BBC News. 2013-03-14. Retrieved 2018-01-30. K College was formed when West Kent and South Kent colleges were merged in 2010. It employs more than 1,100 staff. About 15,000 study at the college's campuses in Tonbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Ashford, Folkestone and Dover.
  • "College was in "a perfect storm"". Kent Online. Retrieved 2018-01-30. K College was formed in April 2010 from the merger of South Kent College and West Kent College and catered for more than 25,000 students at one point.
  • "End in sight for K College sale saga". FE Week. 2014-02-20. Retrieved 2018-01-30. The 800-worker K College, which was formed of a merger between West Kent College and South Kent College in 2010, is being dismantled after it ran up at least £15m in debt to the SFA.
There you have sources that prove the school's existence and the facts, so it's clear the subject needs to be included in some form, either as a stand-alone article or within another article, but certainly not deleted. And citing an RFC about secondary schools at an AFD about a tertiary school is obviously not a good argument... Regards SoWhy 10:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Keep This is not even about secondary school but I am baffled some people are just trying to counter SCHOOLOUTCOMES without even confirming what kind of school they are dealing with. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of the problem may relate to the different uses of the term school. Its usage is much broader in the US than, say, the UK. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sufficient sources to meet GNG, with thanks to Galobtter and SoWhy for listing sources here. I've made a first rewriting pass through the article and will be checking that all of these are cited, and covering at least one bare link. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. if the material in the article needs improvement, fix it. It is better to maintain the rule that all institutions of higher education are notable than to argue each one of the many thousands of them. DGG ( talk ) 09:19, 2 February 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. Per the latest sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Viridiana Salazar[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

  1. ligafemenil.mx - Primary source unsuitable for GNG
  2. marca.com - brief interview with the player following a specific match. Actually very little content specifically about the player, more her speaking about her team. Not significant coverage of the player herself.
  3. sipse.com - very brief interview with the player. Again little content about her, her comments are focussed more on her team and thoughts on a single upcoming match. Not significant coverage of the player herself. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the sources below, although there are several which are very brief and at least one which is simply a blog, which I would not say contributed to GNG. There are a couple of lengthy sources which I had not seen before which, when added to the more minor reporting about the player probably do in this instance equate to a GNG pass. Can't withdraw the nomination as there are other Delete votes below, but happy for the closing admin to view my opinion now as Keep. Fenix down (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY having not played pro football. Govvy (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. The subject is discussed in detail in all the sources. The fact that she doesn't play in what is considered a "professional league" is irrelevant. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep substantial coverage has been found that passes WP:GNG and that has prompted the nominator to change to a keep vote Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. WP:FOOTY covers one women's top-division league last I checked. We should explore why that is. Hmlarson (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Hmlarson (talk) 22:44, 30 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, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

夢境[edit]

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

This game doesn't even meet the notability in Chinese! 333-blue at 10:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • detele Sadly, I don't read chinese, so I can't even look for sources, but the article makes zero suggestions towards notability. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete failing WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Stub about something that may (or may not) be released at some point in 2018 (allegedly). WP:TOOSOON pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What Jake Brockman said, basically. I've always believed that we shouldn't have an article on something that hasn't yet been released in the Wikipedia mainspace unless it has an abundance of coverage in independent sources. Otherwise we're perpetually waiting on sourcing that may never exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I wish speedy deletion criteria A7 was sufficiently broad to cover creative works that make no assertion of notability. TimBuck2 (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super delete, the title is still in Chinese! Also, WP:CRYSTAL since the game supposedly isn't out yet. However, Google Translate reports Mèngjìng, or Dreamland, as the translation of the title. It seems plausible based on Draft:Duoyi Network. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 03:31, 30 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. 2:1 ratio of those contesting for deletion. Those wanting to keep the article didn't necessarily provide convincing, policy-based arguments. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Gómez[edit]

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

Contested Prod, however deletion rationale remains valid, namely: the player 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.

A number of sources have been added to the article, but these are insufficient to satisfy GNG for the following reasons:

  1. ligafemenil.mx - primary source, not suitable for GNG.
  2. noroeste.com.mx - article in fact about a completely different player. Brief mention of the subject, trivial coverage.
  3. espn.com.mx - brief article on the player when she broke her arm. Not significant coverage.
  4. espn.com.mx - a mention of the player by name but no depth. Trivial coverage.
  5. amqueretaro.com - routine match reporting, again a brief mention of the player in a much wider context. Trivial coverage. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Fenix down (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plays at the highest level in her country - if there is not yet a fully professional female league it should not prevent the country's highest-performing females players from being included in our encyclopedia. PamD 10:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep players of any gender simply because they play in their country's top league. By your logic, players from the Kiribati National Championship are inherently notable which is demonstrably untrue. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of why this would be absurd is because I am sure we can find countries in the Muslim world, maybe Saudi Arabia, where the top rated women's football league is games that are played with no publicity and at ad hoc locations, for fear of people shut down by the authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Playing at the top level does not confer notability in itself, hence why we don't allow articles on players from the Faroe Islands Premier League etc. Number 57 10:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being in the top league in your country is not a sign of notability. Does Palau even have a football league? Also, why would we create this bizarre rule for football, and not for any other sport? We already have way more articles on football players than can be adequately maintained, with many on people who played in one game on a low end team in a 2nd or 3rd rate in their country fully professional league, with one source that is not better than a stat report. What we need to do is tighten the notability criteria, not loose them so we get an uncontrollable flood of articles on non-notable people. Wikipedia does not exist to right wrongs. If in the real world women's football in a particular country recieves less coverage and notice than men's football, and this is reflected in the sources, than we have to follow the sources. Wikipedia is not the place for original research and seeking to make the world a utopia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PamD. Plays in the top soccer league in her country. Carrite (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, playing in a top league in a country does not make a footballer notable, hence why WP:NFOOTY does not include it. If it did, we wouldn't have deleted hundreds (if not thousands) of articles on footballers who play in top divisions that aren't fully professional (see e.g. the results of these recent AfDs on players that had played in top divisions). Number 57 10:02, 30 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 defaulting to Keep and without prejudice to a future renomination though I would suggest a short cooling off period. I've read this through a couple of times and opinions are all over the place. I think the case for a no-consensus close is stronger now then at the original close. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Homafaran allegiance[edit]

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

Not a notable enough picture to be included in wikipedia. WP:GNG states that subjects must have mention in media, this does not. Elektricity (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 04:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! Babymissfortune 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Every photograph of a group of people is not worthy of its own article. David notMD (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not "Every photograph of a group". The photo had been very critical amid the revolution developments showing a historical incident. There are many Farsi sources passing the WP:GNG. The photo had been subject of a book entitled "the tumultuous photo". There are some other sources, too. For example, this source talks about the photographer and the incident. It says that the photo were claimed by Mohammad Reza shah regime to be fake, but Khomeini verified it and said that he had met the officers. The incident and the photo are also discussed in the official website of Iranian Army. --Mhhossein talk 05:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Event was important but not the photo which article claimed its effect/significant - not found [26] and [27]. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is that because it doesn't appear in 2 articles, one of which is not relevant ("absolute fury"), it can't be notable? I'm fairly sure that's not how Wikipedia defines notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover(U)(T)(C) 11:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saff V. none of the sources you provided give any in depth coverage, they are more of passing mentions, the likes of which are quite common in the Iranian media. For example you said that this source is about the photograph, but it is not. It is the obituary or death notice of the photographer. An obituary of the photographer is not enough to make the photograph a noticeable subject. Your second source [28] is also a notice that the memorial service of the photographer will be held, it is not about the photograph. The other two sources are the same thing (i.e they have identical text) and they are talking about what happened on that day, not about the photograph. Your google search is also flawed, for example it lists The Mahabharata Secret By Christopher C Doyle, but searching inside the novel we find nothing mentioned about the picture. SO your argument is null and void. Elektricity (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom as there is no notability. An event is not what is actually being covered but a picture that was taken at an event. If the event is not notable then a picture taken at the event certainly is not. The references in the article advance severe POV views such as Revolutionary Iran] used in the first paragraph to supposedly support that the "...photo was published on the front page of the Kayhan daily." but is just a biased source about the revolution. This article can't even be merged to History of the Iranian Air Force because that is an article with one verifiable source so apparently filled with original research.
  • Keep per Mhhossein's comment. The photo is not notable because of the event itself. However, a book writing about the photo itself does lend notability to the photo. Ifnord (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I did close this as "no consensus" but this assessment has been contested on my talk page, so reopening.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the AfD closure was appropriate as no consensus, I don't think admins should be strong-armed into reopening because someone didn't like the result. The article can be nominated for another AfD after some time passes. At that point it would be more clear if it has sustained notability (and has additional sources) or it does not and it would be much easier to convince others (at least me) that it fails our guidelines and should be deleted. Ifnord (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ifnord the book called "the tumultuous photo" is not a reliable sources, as it is a throwaway propaganda book/pamphlet. This is the primary reason that all inclusions in wikipedia are subject to thier mention in WP:RS, as the book does not pass, it cannot be included, and without this book, there is no other source. Elektricity (talk) 09:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mhhossein both news items are a) from propaganda sources and b) they are actually talking about the photographer (he had passed away recently) and they mention this picture as one of his prominent works. Both news outlets are known for sensational news headings. If you can provide any WP:RS we can let this matter rest. A Reliable source should be "reliable, third-party, and published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Your sources are neither third party, nor are they reliable. I mean no disrespect to you, but the fact of the matter is that when the photographer died, there were a lot of obituaries, and the government and the propaganda news outlets were keen to report on his achievements. This happens in all regimes like the iranian one. But this does not mean that thier propaganda is a reliable source for wikipedia articles. If this were the case, then the national news services of the North Korea are replete with "great achievements" of the "nations ultimate photographers, scientists and inventors". We do not include those, and the reason is simple; they do not have any reliable sources, the same is true here. So in a nutshell, the propaganda sources, that talk about the obituary of the photographer, cannot be used to create an article on the wiki about one of the photographers works. Elektricity (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are covering the photo. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 18:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mhhossein actually they are puff pieces written to cover the death and 40 day anniversary of the photographer. If you can find any independent sources (not controlled by the iranian regime) that talk about this photograph, we can insert those. With this propped up by just trivial mentions and propaganda pieces of the iranian regime controlled media, it seems to me that the subject is non notable. There are many persian and Arabic sources that covered the revolution, there are countless books (English, Persian and Arabic) written about the revolution. If even after 30 years, not a single one of those academic books outside iranian regime controlled propaganda, and not a single one of the renowned historians gave this photograph any space, then we should heed the opinion of the historians and remove this from wikipedia as well. The revolution is not something that just happened and was forgotten, there are hundreds of books written about it in many languages. Elektricity (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating your words. You've apparently got a wrong understanding of independence of the subject. You can simply search for the photo history. For example see this one saying: "Hossein Partovi’s photo of the Shah’s air force army technicians (Homafaran) in attendance at Ayatollah Khomeini’s domicile had a significant impact on the body of Shah’s army." --Mhhossein talk 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Mhhossein Your source actually strengthens the deletion argument. First of all it does not mention the photo by name, it does not call it Homsafran Allegiance or whatever, and secondly it is the very definition of trivial mentions, please read WP:TRIVIALMENTION. So You are actually strengthening the deletion argument here. Elektricity (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. --Mhhossein talk 18:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't really matter if the photo or the event is the one that's covered by sources, the material currently in the article is fine either as an article about a famous historical photograph or a historical event which had a significant photo taken during it. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom, WP:NOTGALLERY, and Wikipedia:Notability (events), that community consensus has determined does matter. There are multiple millions of "historic photographs" around the world but we don't push them to be more significant than the event a photograph was taken at or of, just to create a Wikipedia gallery of historic pictures. This source from the article states "...Imam Khomeini during his visit to Alawi School on February 19" and the photograph was contested as propaganda. Since it was so secretive we have to place in the article "Army public relations denied the photo but Ruhollah Khomeini confirmed its authenticity.". The world of Wikipedia does not revolve around that Ruhollah Khomeini alone can certify that the picture was not a group of "cadets" being photographed as propaganda. This is the reason for requiring multiple reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Redirect to Iranian Revolution. One or the other of those would be appropriate. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 22:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with History of the Iranian Air Force and redirect, on the basis of poor sourcing which fails WP:GNG. There's actually no indication that this is the most important Homafaran allegiance - you could argue that the more significant Homafaran allegiance was the act of the Iranian Air Force throwing in their support for Khomeini, not just a photo taken of the event. But the photo can accompany the retelling of the event. On this note, the History of the Iranian Air Force article needs a better explanation of what Homafaran are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:45, 3 February 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. None of the keep votes addressed the concerns that this failed the policy of WP:NOTNEWS, and relied solely on the notability guideline, when notability was used as only one of the rationales for deletion. The weight of the arguments in discussions is typically given to guidelines over policies, and while there can be disagreement as to when NOTNEWS applies, those supporting keeping in this discussion did not explain why this article was not covered by it. Because of that, the strength of the arguments in this case is for deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT disruptions[edit]

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

Ridiculous list of every little delay on the citywide train network. Not notable whatsoever. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The pages 2011 and 2015 MRT breakdowns (each had its own article) were merged into the article for convenience.
  • Keep and cleanup afterwards Most of the disruptions were high-profile ones, with Wife coverage in the news. Regarding its notability, it is currently one of the hottest topics in Singapore now, especially after the Joo Koon rail accident.
Delays are NOT high profile. Who wants to read a whole article on incidents of train delays, seriously??? Ajf773 (talk) 10:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page gets good traffic and thousands of people read it on some days. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's irrelevant for the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ajf773 introduces the issue by asking "Who wants to read...?" It seems that plenty of people want to read this; many more than read his own articles such as New Zealand State Highway 22. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." Andrew D. (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is based upon WP:NOTNEWS and WP:LISTCRUFT. The first of these does not seem to be relevant and the second is a worthless essay equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As there's no case to answer, we might as well look at the significant features of the page, including the fact that its average readership is about 75 per day, which is quite good. Andrew D. (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This IS WP:LISTCRUFT. Delays on public transport are a regular occurrence and not notable, nor is a list of every single news report one can find for one particular transit network. Ajf773 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic and this article is not. Ajf773 (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your above comments, the delays and disruptions are high profile, and as I said earlier, each small one gets wide press coverage and media attention. -1.02 editor (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only entry on that entire list that is notable and received significant coverage is Joo Koon rail accident. Reported delays and planned disprutions are NOT notable and a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk)
  • Not true, each one of the delays in 2016,7&8, the 2011, 2015 major disruptions each has press coverage, some more than the others (based on severeness) 1.02 editor (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to you here's an example of a major disruption:: Monday, January 19 @ 3:20PM to 3:30PM - Train services were delayed on the North South MRT Line between Admiralty MRT Station and Yishun MRT Station, in the direction towards Marina South Pier MRT Station. A service delay for 10 painstaking minutes!!!!!!! Ajf773 (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I said cleanup in my first statement.1.02 editor (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

23:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep This is a very useful and noteworthy list to keep track of the performance of MRT system, the backbone of Singapore's public transport system. Each year, millions of man-hours are lost due to train disruptions. This article serves as a means to measure the impact to businesses and commuters. It also serves to gauge the performance of the government in maintaining an efficient public transport system. Jane Dawson (talk) 13:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Read earlier comments, incidents on transport delays are NOT notable. The article explains nothing of what you've described, the article was accessed from this one: History of the MRT (Singapore) and anything on that would be better to be included there. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • could you clarify yourself here? I'm a bit lost reading it. 1.02 editor (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nowhere in the article is there any mention of This article serves as a means to measure the impact to businesses and commuters. It also serves to gauge the performance of the government in maintaining an efficient public transport system. or anything remotely similar. Ajf773 (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just giving my opinion why this article is important. It doesn't have to state what I wrote. This list of MRT disruptions is highly remarkable given the high accolates that Singapore received for its "efficient" public transport system. What this article needs is a cleanup to trim unnecessary details. Information pertaining to disruption start time, duration, location, reason and impact would be sufficent. Jane Dawson (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, details of every single disruption is not notable and content relating to the efficiency of the transit network does not need a whole article assigned just for it. Ajf773 (talk) 03:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that there are overall complaints about MRT performance is potentially notable news (although really, who doesn't complain?) but a blow-by-blow listing of every delay in the system is a huge dump of raw data which demands analysis to be meaningful, and I note under WP:INDISCRIMINATE item 3 specifically mentions "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics", which is is an exact description of what we have here. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh it's you, no further comment required. Ajf773 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as other have said, this falls under WP:NOTNEWS The number of hits a page gets is irrelevant, topics are supposed to be encyclopedic, not popular.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: if you don't mind I'll reduce the list to only major disruptions and delays and make it into an article format. if no one objects I'll also change the title to Singapore MRT Disruptionsmajor incidents afterwards.1.02 editor (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A list like this, honestly, is like making a list of strikes on the London Underground, and it's really only a big thing in Singapore, while on a global standpoint it's not notable enough to warrant an article. Also, WP:NOTNEWS. R22-3877 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete, or Keep, cleanup and move to something like "List of major Singapore MRT disruptions". Including every single delay both violates WP:NOTNEWS and WP:N, and is impossible since many of the minor delays can't be sourced anyway. The only solution I see that doesn't involve deleting this outright is to get rid of all the minor delays, and expand and focus on the major ones including those before 2011. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 09:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @KN2731: Minor delays have been removed, currently in the process of moving things about. 1.02 editor (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @1.02 editor: in light of your work I think I'll strike my delete vote. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 09:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable, as demonstrated by Andrew D., and now that minor delays have been removed it is no longer an indiscriminate list. It can certainly be improved further (for one thing, what little there is on the impact of these disruptions is scattered around the article), but that is no reason to delete it. Double sharp (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large number have been removed but some still remain, even these incidents are not notable (a two hour delay is still pretty minor on a mass transport network). Only the ones with articles are worth mentioning. Ajf773 (talk) 07:20, 31 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John M. Anastasatos[edit]

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

This is basically a professional-directory listing/clip file for a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon. Yeah, he gets himself booked on TV shows, but I'm not seeing actual notability here. Calton | Talk 06:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An ordinary (promotional) CV of a medical practitioner in the highly competitive field of cosmetic surgery (facial rejuvenation, breast enhancement, vaginal beautification, body contouring [29]). ——Chalk19 (talk) 13:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Comment John M. Anastasatos is a known plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills and in Greece as well, with many honors and recognitions during his scientific career WP:NACADEMIC, a lot of scientific presentations and publications. “Search engine statistics” is not a requirement to decide if an article should be deleted or not WP:INVALIDBIO.

Below there are the General notability guideline. I believe that this article passes all of them, and as such, should not be deleted. WP:GNG

• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent. (Article does not fail this.)

• "Sources", should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. (Article does not fail this either.)

• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. (Plenty of reliable sources have been provided in this article, i.e. https://www.forbes.com/search/?q=Anastasatos#40bd379e279f)

• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic 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 (This has been provided as well.)

In my opinion this article has no promotional style and does not fail to the Writing style a Biography of a living person must have WP:BLPSTYLE. However I made some improvements. GogouAnastasia (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The user above has contributions only on John M. Anastasatos. Maybe there is a WP:COI with her subject. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:015, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete an overly promotional article on a medical doctor in an overly promotional field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- article looks like linkedin. As other have said above, the doctor is not notable. I do not see him passing WP:NACADEMIC, he may be a good doctor, buts its not like he invented plastic surgery.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 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. Sandstein 08:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture) Convention, 1933 (shelved)[edit]

Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture) Convention, 1933 (shelved) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted whatsoever, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectComment possibly redirect to List of International Labour Organization Conventions. This was a notable convention, however there currently isn't enough independent, seconday/tertiary reliable sourcing in the article. There isn't anything to merge that isn't already in the list. However, a quick search finds numerous mentions under "Convention concerning compulsory invalidity insurance for persons employed in agricultural undertakings"[see corrected alternative search above], and I think a WP:HEY may be possible. Smmurphy(Talk) 00:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my !vote to a comment. @TenPoundHammer: do you mind explaining your WP:BEFORE and why you think this article should be deleted in spite of what you did or didn't find, given that it was a major international labor convention? Smmurphy(Talk) 00:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Invalidity Insurance (Agriculture) Convention is a different convention, C038. This here is C040.  --Lambiam 23:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, a possible alternative search should be: "Convention concerning Compulsory Widows' and Orphans' Insurance for Persons Employed in Agricultural Undertakings". Smmurphy(Talk) 23:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag -- As a former international convention (treaty), albeit a defunct one that was ratified by a few countries, this is a notable topic. The present article is a poor stub, but that is not a reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have 20 articles on shelved International Labour Organization conventions; it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily bomb one of them – and in any case, even if the content is merged into a more general article on ILO conventions, we need to keep a redirect; the operation will not require deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 23:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 06:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my understanding is that this is notable. It is an international treaty, and notability is not temporary. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 12:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Sourcing on this continues to be an issue that I'm finding insurmountable. It's obvious that this would have a place in some list having to do with certain labor issues; it's referred to over and over in works on social security. The problem is, to be blunt, nobody ever talks about what it says. Even the article doesn't say what it says, with or without sourcing. I'm guessing that a lot of the other conventions in the same categories suffer from similar faults, so appealing to them isn't helpful: this article needs to be justified on its own merits. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bluefield Technologies[edit]

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

De-prodded. New 2017 startup. Coverage in article doesn't show SIGCOV and definitely not CORPDEPTH. While this startup sounds like a "cool concept" and might definitely be notable in the future, at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. Most of the sources in the article do not advance notability (own website, name mention in conferences, Cruchbase). I think Medium doesn't count as RS, but they do have a paragraph - [30]. We do have 1 good Bloomberg piece - [31] focused on the company (this was repeated (syndicate?) in Portuguese - [32] and summarized in sfgate - [33]). In short - essentially we have one Bloomberg article, which would not be enough for SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bloomberg piece just one short piece that doesn't say too much about the company Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it is worth adding more content to the article, for example there are several tech bloggers who covered the company. This article is the beginning and set the structure to allow it to further evolve. Also, the investors of this company include Yahoo's founder and the widow of Steve Jobs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there do seem to be a couple of substantial writings on the topic eg the Shu's green patch. But because of cooperation with company may not be totally independent. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't Shu's green patch a WP:BLOGS and hence not a RS? Or is the author (Shu Das) known as an expert?Icewhiz (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep also http://strategy-iot.com/bluefield-global-methane-gas-detection-from-space/ from a tech blogger. The point is that the company exists. It is a prove of commercial initiative to monitor greenhouse gases emitters using satellites. It's got a business model, team, and 3rd party recognition.

https://ieeetv.ieee.org/ieeetv-specials/ieee-entrepreneurship-hello-tomorrow-global-summit-bluefield-tech&source=gmail&ust=1516323684934000&usg=AFQjCNFvfJELQRh067YTUQw5mUdY2IHerw It is something the public and Wikipedia readers would benefit from having one article which consolidate all the info on the company and even raise critical reviews on what the company is doing. We got to start somewhere. I suggest adding more info from the public coverage and evaluations on the company. Thank you for putting thought into this Infofuture (talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) And this: https://medium.com/@hugh_w_forrest/sxsw-startups-bluefield-fights-methane-7cbf657b8b60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • More content has been added. What's your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 13:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources added are either not reliable/independent or not about the company (e.g. a NASA page from 1995). The closest to being relevant is a medium.com interview with the company with the poster being part of the SXSW accelerator event - which does not establish notability. Basically we have a startup who was covered once in Bloomberg.Icewhiz (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Icewhiz. The startup was covered by Bloomberg, and also by very selective technology events and organizations. SPIE, IEEE, Energy New Venture (sponsored by Shell), World Bank, Coalition for agriculture emissions, satellite tech organizations. Do we need to go to the extreme of deleting it? What other options do we have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 02:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added reference from Forbes https://www.forbes.com/sites/valleyvoices/2017/04/04/how-to-win-big-investing-in-the-space-2-0-boom/2/#3950fcd82f3d — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Passing mention - in list + 1 sentence. In addition this by a Forbed contributor, not staff, and there are some issues with the Forbes site being used to host NEWSBLOGS.Icewhiz (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was ready to hate this piece, guessing it was spam for a new startup. It's actually kind of interesting and does indeed seem to meet GNG. See THIS, for example, as one piece of independently published, presumably reliable, substantial coverage. Carrite (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I see a mention of Bluefield here as well: https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/ICYMI-From-Snap-Maps-to-Wild-Wings-to-smart-12495299.php
  • Delete This topic falls well short of our standards for notability. There are no indications of notability for this topic within the article, it is essentially a startup that has some seed funding and has participated in some startup competitions. The references appear to be from reliable sources (as is usual) but fail the other criteria for establishing notability. Run-of-the-mill business listings in Crunchbase and Bloomberg fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely on company announcements and press releases fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Articles that rely extensively on "fascinating conversations", "IEEE Entrepreneurship chats", quotations and interviews fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Articles that are mere mentions-in-passing such as the Forbes reference fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP, none of the references pass the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious spam excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. The question of the GNG is irrelevant as WP:N makes it clear that a failure of NOT means that something does not pass the notability guideline. Since this falls outside of the scope of Wikipedia (as defined by NOT and WP:5P), the evaluation of the sourcing is a secondary question. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it has a neutral point of view and reference to 3rd party information. Also, this is just the very early stage of this article, and it will be evolving but needs to start somewhere so others can contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofuture (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your bolded !vote as you've already had one bold keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 2 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:40, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TSG Pictures[edit]

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

Delete There is not a single source for TSG Pictures. It has produced the films Sling Blade (film), Illtown, Niagara, Niagara, Frogs for Snakes, Strangeland (film), The 24 Hour Woman, and The Minus Man. The article doesn't even mention the founder of the company. There are also no indications of notability, and it fails GNG and WP:NCORP. This is why it should be deleted. Evil Idiot 15:25, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename as The Shooting Gallery, and expand. The current article lacks sourcing and context, but at AfD we evaluate subjects on the basis of their potential for notability, not the current state of an article. See WP:BEFORE. The Shooting Gallery was an important entity in the independent film world during the 1990s. Plentiful coverage can be found in sources like The New York Times [34], Los Angeles Times [35], Village Voice [36], Variety [37], etc. A notable 2013 documentary, Misfire: The Rise and Fall of the Shooting Gallery, also covers the story. The article title should be moved back to the better-known name it used for most of its existence and expanded using the many sources available. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and expand per Arxiloxos; they got a few Oscar noms and wins for Sling Blade. Even if that was their only film, they'd clinch WP:N on that alone. Nate • (chatter) 01:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources including significant coverage identified by Arxiloxos and now in the article Atlantic306 (talk) 18:30, 25 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. I'm closing as no consensus based on the lack of participation and the weighting of the arguments here. No prejudice against speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Xu[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 14:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very subatantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Article already has numerous cites to cover of her. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of references, including in-depth coverage in The Washington Post and Capital Gazette to name a few. The company Chesapeake Bay Candle is also likely notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:56, 25 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, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fauzia Arshi[edit]

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

Nothing significant. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:31, 25 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

J. Frank Diggs[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Valoem with meaningless and unhlepful rationale "Contested prod" (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for a proper explanation in the PROD). So, now we are here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you try searching for sources? My Google search came up with this obituary as the second result. FloridaArmy (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obituaries, or worse, a single one, are not considered sufficient for a source. Depends a bit on their quality, Washington Post is good, through in this case not sufficient I think because "For three years before joining the Army early in World War II, Mr. Diggs was a writer with The Washington Post." so it seems pretty clear he got his obit there because he used to know the right people and they did him (his family) a favor. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 06:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Being a POW fails WP:SOLDIER. Diggs' book, The Welcome Swede, seems to be out of print and is available only from resellers on Amazon.com, where it's number 4,364,115 on the best seller list.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one source is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A quick search finds the Washington Post obit (which was carried in other papers, I added a link to it and to one in the Camden Courier-Post), and a dozen or so google book results[38]. The books all discuss Frank's experience in WWII as a POW and his escape. This experience was in his book, Oflag-64, which appears to still be in print, as is another of his books, Americans Behind Barbed Wire. In particular, his coverage in Dando-Collins 2017 is quite extensive, I've added that source to his page. His work writing a paper while a POW was somewhat unique, although he wasn't the only POW to do so it did receive some attention in the papers during the war, I added a link to one such report from 1944 in the Baltimore Sun. I think that these three references plus the numerous other references one can find at google books suffice to show that he is the subject of multiple in-depth reliable sources independent of the subject. His career was sufficiently interesting that I do not think 1E applies. The sources I've added and the new, longer article passes WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Looking at the google books results I linked above, his writing on POWs may pass NSOLDIER #8 and NAUTHOR #4, although given the multiple sources, I think he passes GNG, which is sufficient. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in part per new sources provided, which were added to the article on 17 January 2018‎.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the added obits meet WP:GNG standard. --RAN (talk) 05:04, 26 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. Non policy based keep votes fail to overcome policy based delete votes. Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Nine Club[edit]

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

I cannot find substantial information on this podcast in independent reliable sources, so I think it fails WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet notability. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi gentlemen, thanks for taking up this discussion. I'd like to bring up a few things: first, this is still a work in progress (WP:DEMOLISH, for example) and it is of high relevance to hundreds of thousands of listeners/viewers each week (myself included; I am in no way attached to the Nine Club).

As for notability, it is a podcast featuring dozens of the world's most important skateboarding personalities. Certainly, not a scientific topic, but each host meets notability criteria as do the vast majority of guests.

That said, the idea that the Nine Club "lacks sufficient coverage in reliable sources" is off for a few reasons. First, it is heavily covered in international skateboarding media (print and digital: see here for one example: http://www.jenkemmag.com/home/2017/07/19/behind-scenes-nine-club-studio/ or the 64 articles on Transworld Skateboarding, an independent and longstanding print and digital publication). Yes, the page needs updated with more sources beyond the Nine Club pages. I agree. I will take that upon myself to update and improve, under each of your watchful eye. But just because there are no peer-reviewed articles that mention the show doesn't mean that coverage is not "sufficient" for notability. I am myself a scholar employed at an American research university and I must say, suggesting this page for deletion while hundreds of much more questionable pages exist strikes me as a lack of understanding the content area or the cultural weight and international import of skateboarding, its history, and media culture. --Mariano Landa (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, [still keep] I've made some revisions and included links to more than a half-dozen outside sources (journalism) in order to quelch doubts of "sufficient coverage in reliable sources." I'm aware that there is no scholarly research on the topic, and as such, I would suggest that specialist media serves to validate notability. Many subcultures do not get regular mention in major international outlets (say The New York Times or El Pais), but do get consistent and unbiased coverage from specialist media sources that are both reliable, professional, and intimately related to the subculture/demographic to which they relate. Please comment. Again, my intention is not to advertise for The Nine Club, but to highlight how this project serves as oral history archive broadcast and preserved for the skateboarding world and world at large. Mariano Landa (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, probably. Well, thanks for your efforts, and for adding sources. Sources are certainly needed. Concern must be about the quality of the sources so far added. They are definitely from the subculture which means they are unlikely to confer notability and might be considered simply unreliable. On your goals, they sound laudable but Wikipedia is not an archive, shrine, or museum. On WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we are all painfully aware there are more things that ought to be deleted or radically pruned, and we're working on it, but their existence is no justification for adding to the list. If nothing better can be found to support the article's claims (and none of us have found any better sources) then deletion will be the right option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chiswick et al, I thought that this was not a numeric vote, per se, but a means of discussing and proving or disproving the merits of a page based on argumentation. You've overlooked this fundamental point in the deletion debate.

A fundamental problem with the notability/sourcing guidelines is the inability to recognize robust and legitimate subcultures as appropriate content for Wikipedia. Again, I recognize that there is no scholarly sourcing related to this page. Of course there is not. I also recognize that the topic has not yet graced the pages of the New York Times. However, we are in a digital age wherein notability is not only marked by the gatekeepers of traditional print media and the sourcing norms continue to jeopardize the creation and aggregation of legitimate entries (by way of overall cultural importance and critical mass of interested and involved participants to whom the subject is highly relevant). While I don't expect any of you to rectify this, your pedantry smacks of cultural elitism more than any real justification for removal. To quote you, Chiswick Chap, in an earlier argument of yours for keeping an article: "it is not enough to assume that a poorly-sourced article is not notable"

To speak more directly to your point, a question prefaced by an example: underground but major/prominent musicians are often only written about by subcultural media. The same goes for visual artists (high culture, high art, etc.). These pages continue to exist with limited to no debate or question given that they are cited by subcultural media. Why would skateboarding media not be held to the same standard? Or is the argument that everything shy of Rolling Stone or the American Art Review coverage should be deleted? I'm sure that you must at least sympathize with this point. Mariano Landa (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can sympathise with your (lengthy) plea for this article, and your ingenuity and diligence in searching for my quote, but I was making a far different point from what you hope I was saying in that other discussion. I was asking whether reliable sources, not yet cited, existed to demonstrate notability, as that's how we decide matters at AfD; you were hoping I was asking whether unsourceable articles on worthy topics could be notable: I wasn't, and they aren't. If you can find decent sources, I'll change my opinion: I'm not a pedant or cultural elitist, and by the way you can be blocked for using words of that kind about other editors. Lack of reliable sources is the "real justification for removal". Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chap, You've far overstated my use of "cultural elitism" and "pedantry" and they weren't used as a taunt nor as direct insults in the context of many of the insults that I've seen imparted on other editors. As for "decent sources," there are reliable sources now: Billboard Magazine, BET, MTV News, High Snobiety, The Daily Dot. Perhaps these outlets are too modern for your tastes, but all of these outlets have broken major and serious stories in mainstream journalism and their citation of the Nine Club is a legitimation of notability. Their citing and sourcing of the Nine Club should serve to quell doubts as to the reliability or independence of sources. Not to mention the now present citation of the vast majority of major skateboard media outlets, each owned by corporate parent companies of repute. I'm still having a hard time coming to terms with the fact that any scientific journal short of Nature can be deemed sufficient if journalistic standards short of the NYT are insufficient. I get the peer review article angle on why any scientific journal would count as a notable source, but the fact that there are activities and groups that have been excluded from peer review sources (on the basis of scholarly cultural elitism) and in which no terminal degree is possible (skateboarding hardly registers within my field of cultural studies) ought to suggest that there is notability in realms beyond the scholarly or the creme de la creme of global journalism. I understand that many of you have dedicated countless hours to Wikipedia and for that I am grateful. I do however request that you open your horizons to the cultural validity of things that are foreign or even stigmatized in your corner of the world and also recognize that the sources related to these activities are valid, notable, and reputable albeit wanton of Pulitzer-holding outlets. Mariano Landa (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You write at great length. Reliable sources, however, go much wider than scientific journals. And kindly stop messing with my username. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Nine Club is an essential and core part of skateboarding culture. To those who are not within the skateboarding scene, The Nine Club is an obscure talk show. To hundreds of thousands, though, it is a source of information and entertainment of both historical skateboarding icons, and current professionals. Additionally, the show has illuminated many of the inner working of the skateboard industry that were often only insider knowledge. If your standard is solely to have academic style citation and sources alone, then many cultural icons like The Nine Club will be missed. Themidnightwill (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Nine Club is a long running podcast with thousands of listeners that is creating an archive of skateboarding history. It is really that simple, there is far less important topics covered on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinko236 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC) This !vote is this editors single contribution to Wikipedia. Onel5969 TT me 15:02, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then all you people need to do is to demonstrate its WP:Notability, which you haven't. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Chiswick "you people." Now that's an insult. That said, per your insistence that we need to demonstrate notability, let's review. Notability is determined "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This page checks that box assuming admission of source reliability. On to that, here's the definition of reliable sources that mark notability, which would actually include skateboarding media, in spite of the fact that it isn't mainstream"
"Reliability: The content guideline to identify reliable sources says, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Sources that have published materials in print (such as newspapers and other periodicals) are reliable if their publication process is considered reliable. If these sources also publish materials online, then it is usually fair to assume that these materials have a similar publication process (see WP:NEWSBLOG). If sources publish materials only online, then their publication process and/or the authority of the author should be scrutinized carefully."
All of the skateboard publications are "published materials with a reliable publication process" that appear in print and online. Editors of skateboarding magazines are, indeed "authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject." The new sources are reliable by definition and certainly independent of the program and its founders, as they're not related to The Nine Club program.

Mariano Landa (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, I was just indicating that I was replying to two editors. However, repeating your arguments over and over again at length could definitely be considered "tendentious editing". The problem with your sources is that they're basically in-universe with respect to the topic, which I believe we agree is not mainstream. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't think that we agree. "In-universe" sources would nullify thousands of pages otherwise deemed relevant. Billboard, MTV News, etc. are not "in-universe" to skateboarding. They're major media outlets. And I'm not being tendentious. I'm trying to make a point that you either don't grasp or won't acknowledge and I'm hoping that a third party will weigh in or mediate. Mariano Landa (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:46, 25 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of surreal comedians[edit]

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

This completely unreferenced article is the very definition of listcruft. With no referenced definition of "surreal humor," the article can be populated with just anybody. A cursory glance at the list indicates that it's positively ludicrous. I know that "surreal" now has essentially no definition whatsoever, but this is an encyclopedia we're building and we have to have some standard of definition. Delete and salt against this abomination ever returning. The Old JacobiteThe '45 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say there's no definition of "surreal humor" but it links to Surreal humour, which is an attempt at a definition of surreal humour. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I said is that "surreal," in its common usage, including here on WP, has no definition. The Surreal humour article offers a vague attempt, at best, of its subject. And nothing in the awful Surreal humour article justifies the existence of this list article; the small number of such "comedians" could easily be included in that article, with references. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete All humor is somehow surreal. Mangoe (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable and indiscriminate list. Ajf773 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 08:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gee whiz, TOJ, who pooped in your oatmeal? While I don't like unverified and indiscriminate lists any more than the next conscientious Wikipedian, and am even OK with deleting the list as it currently stands, I think such an extreme, emotional reaction is unwarranted ("salt against this abonation ever returning"). Unverified does not necessarily mean unverifiable, and WP:Deletionism is not the answer. Surreal humor is a very real thing, existing in classical literature and art, and modern comedy. Despite the fact the word "surreal" has virtually become meaningless white noise in modern public conversation, and that on first thought it may seem (as it originally did to me) that all humor depends on absurdity, surreal comedy is a publicly recognized genre of comedy, and several comedians or comedy groups are verifiably recognized as "surreal comedians". This includes British comedians such as the cast of The Goon Show and their descendants, including Monty Python and The Firesign Theatre. The Firesigns also refer to themselves as surrealists and use the word in some of their material. The list certainly could be restored someday, properly written referencing surreal humor and cited. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Emotion has nothing to do with it. If the very few comedians on this list who are relevant can be cited, they can be included in an improved version of the Surreal humour article. But, nothing you've said here argues for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for the same sort of nonsense with which it is currently populated. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I am not arguing for keeping the list, just against deleting it with prejudice. You and I are in agreement that the best course of action is to delete the list page, and move the few, verified examples into Surreal humour. Many list pages on Wikipedia are prone to being "targets for this sort of nonsense", which I think is an endemic symptom of our "List-class" rating system, which prevents lists from being quality-rated (and thus being given attention to verifiability) the same as other articles; but that's for another project discussion page. JustinTime55 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- yep, this is pretty blatant listcruft. It's inherently WP:OR since there's no clear and solid definition of the term, nor any sources describing any of the people on the list as such. Reyk YO! 14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Surreal humour. A brief list of examples on the surreal humour page with sources for each individual would suffice. I don't think the list should just be deleted; examples of surreal comedians add to the clarity and understanding on the definition of surreal humour. Nanophosis (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially regarding the fact that any comedian could be added to the list without contributing anything to a reader. I disagree with the merge proposal, currently Gilbert Gottfried is listed - that's a pretty far stretch, IMHO. I do not see the purpose of merging such a large list of names into Surreal humour. Ifnord (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh...No one is proposing that the entire unverified list as it now stands be merged into the article; only that a few, select, well-verified (that's the real problem, isn't it?) examples be merged into the article. I can name a few off the top of my head: Ernie Kovacs; The Goon Show, and their descendents Monty Python and The Firesign Theatre; maybe The Goodies. Any more than that certainly isn't necessary. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that the inclusion of Gilbert Gottfried is a stretch, and I didn't mean to imply with my merge vote that the entire list as it stands now should be included in Surreal humour. As JustinTime55 stated, a select few of well-cited examples from the current list could be included, while the poor choices (I seem to recall Will Ferrell on the list...) could be omitted. I apologize for the confusion. Nanophosis (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I clicked on the first five links. Three of the linked-to articles noted Surreal comedy in the infoboxes. Of the two that didn't, Rowan Atkinson can be sourced with Encyclopedia of Television, and Bo Burnham from Esquire. So, we're already calling these guys surreal (or could be with known good sourcing). It's worth reviewing the other entries to verify sourcing (and update their infoboxes as needed), but I think that puts to bed the listcruft issue. If any are found that can't be reliably sourced as being surreal, then take them off the list. But that's not a reason to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Roy's analysis above is spot on. Usually we analyze such categories in category discussions and say: "hey, this is is slightly fuzzy for a category but a real comedy genre. Let's listify." Here it is already listified. In other words: not broken, do not fix. gidonb (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of RoySmith's keep argument that came in late in the discussion.
That someone listed "surreal comedy" in the infoboxes of some of these comedians is irrelevant. All that matters is how the term is defined (in this case, no definition at all, as stated above) and how it is referenced in the respective articles. As I said above, the few comedians who can be defined as "surreal," with refs to support the claim, can be listed at the Surreal humour article. That is no argument for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for unreferenced rubbish. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. A "List of Comedic comedians" would be only slightly less encyclopedic. I note also that the concept of a comedian being 'reliably sourced' as surreal is...well, you know. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. By the broad surreal definition given in the article, most comedians would qualify. George Carlin? Bill Murray? (Sur)really? Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should this be renamed to List of surrealist comedians, assuming there are comedians who specialize in surrealism? Surrealist (occupation) seems to have a lot of categories. If the list is going to be kept, it would be thought of as a category and require references showing that it is a defining characteristic of the comedian's work, and be mentioned in secondary sources as a surrealist artist, and not something they've dabbled with as most comedians have pretty much done something extraordinary or stimulate imagination. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:57, 27 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) !dave 08:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bragi (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Quite a bit of coverage of the product in the form of product reviews and coverage of capabilities - however that would possibly advance the cause of the Bragi Dash, not the company. WP:TNT also due to promotional quality and over focus on product features. Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with deleting this article as an advertisement but there is substantial coverage in reliable independent sources of the company and its products. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that most of the coverage is on the product and not on the company.Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article on the company is where the product is covered. FloridaArmy (talk) 06:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This particular company is worth covering; the products themselves may be notable , but the best way to cover them is in a combination article like this. The promotional nature can be fixed readily enough. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:35, 25 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) 00:32, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Barbera[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT . May be WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 12:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Has plenty of ongoing coverage (dozens of articles across 3 years) in local newspaper NewsMail, however probably doesn't have a broad enough audience to call it significant coverage under the GNG as he is covered in no other news sources. Also fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Kb.au (talk) 05:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't believe the coverage I can find is sufficient to meet WP:GNG because I don't see significant independent non-routine coverage from multiple sources. I also don't believe that driving in the Dunlop Super2 Series meets WP:NMOTORSPORT. Papaursa (talk) 17:54, 1 February 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) 05:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COPYTRACK[edit]

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

A WP:SPA article on a company established in 2015, with text describes the company's service proposition. The references are largely primary plus some relating to a research item by the company and some blog posts. While some more recent posts relating to their Initial coin offering and commenting on a Kodak announcement can be found, I am not finding evidence that the company has attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:49, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roshan Ali Shaikh[edit]

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

no in-depth coverage in RS. Director General of the National Institute of Management is a notable office. Saqib (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adeel Safi (talk) 11:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Sir, he is among the most popular bureaucrats of Karachi. As you would know, bureaucratic transfer take place from time to time. He has for a long period been at the helm of the city's affairs. Currently, he is incharge of the NIM. Rest is upto your judgement, as you are a much more experienced user.[reply]

  • Comment the user who created this BLP has been blocked for socking. --Saqib (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it per G5. Störm (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As far as I can see he was not blocked at the time of creation of this article, so G5 does not apply. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:19, 29 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) 15:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs[edit]

List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 DJs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 Clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing for discussion under this provision in the Non-Free Content rules, that such lists can be a copyvio. Honestly, I'm not sure on this, but per the Associate Counsel's opinion footnoted there, this does seem to need to go. Also nominating List of DJ Magazine's Top 100 Clubs for identical reasons. Courcelles (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Courcelles (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:37, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both — The counsel recommended using polls in accordance with fair use principles, reminding that merely republishing them without any commentary or transformation is not fair use. These lists have been republished with significant transformation (the added nationality rows, links, references, tables, styling & layout). Fair use applies here and further improvements can be made. It is also an opinion that the method used in selecting these polls indicates creativity. Also, the courts have not firmly established precedence on the matter. — Zawl 07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you looked at the WP:NFCC rules? You're violating a lot of them, #2, respect for commercial opportunities specifically by reproducing years and years of these lists. Courcelles (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both the opinion of the WMF legal counsel is not the actual English Wikipedia policy. It is a footnote explaining how we reached the policy we have. English Wikipedia text copyright policy is significantly stronger than required under US law. The section Courcelles quoted was the direct application of our principles (we can't recreate these lists as a whole), but the deeper principles are actually higher up at WP:NFCCP. In particular, it fails the minimum usage criterion: the entire page is based off of copyrighted content, that is not reasonably construed as being minimal usage. Additionally, even if we took the counsel's assessment as being en.wp policy instead of the opinion that we based the policy on, this would still fail as there has not been significant transformation or commentary (flags and up and down signs don't do this). Finally, as it explains at the top of the non-free criteria page, the point here is to be a free content encyclopedia that can even be reused commercially. Nothing here could be reused commercially, and as such it falls well outside of our mission. Delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Regardless of whether the content is a copyvio, some of the sources are extremely questionable (possibly self published) and there is an overload of stats that would otherwise violate WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. both. no evidence it is a recognizes wualifiaction for notability DGG ( talk ) 09:21, 2 February 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 for deletion. Killiondude (talk) 05:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nichi Hodgson[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the references presented above are sufficient for notability . DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 2 February 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) 16:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Concrete[edit]

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

The article is basically an advertisement. Most of the cited sources are form the same person who wrote the article, possibly on behalf of the company that markets this product. Bitmapped (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it is fascinating how the article seems to have nothing to do with concrete. Basically the company fills old tyres with gravel and builds things out of them. The company is not notable, and neither is the process of filling old tyres with gravel. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 09:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet a notable term, as searches show (and I submit the concept, while interesting, is not novel enough to merit an article either, nor has it received sufficient coverage to indicate so). As it stands, this is intended to raise the profile of the company. Not what WP is for. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not currently notable enough. Nothing in online searches, and probably WP:TOOSOON. Needs media coverage of a wider rollout, I think. No  pun intended. Sounds impressively weight-bearing. Wonder if it could withstand a 20 pound hammer. As  an afterthought: I've be  happy to see a few lines and a photo merged into Cellular confinement. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:38, 25 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. I would be happy to userfy it to someone interested in splitting the info into new pages. J04n(talk page) 15:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the Indian Ocean Islands[edit]

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

Full of original research with no references or reliable sources. Also the subject matter is more about the history of them rather than anything cultural. Mattg82 (talk) 13:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 15:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As original research. If anyone wants to userfy it to address the OR issues, they should. Ajf773 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce to a stub with references. There are indeed plenty of references relating to the culture of the Indian Ocean Islands in Google books.[39] My issue is not necessarily the focus on history, as the history and culture of a group can be intertwined. My issue is the lack of refs for such a detailed article. However, not adding refs (despite refs being available) does not necessitate deletion. As regards to notability, it is notable just like Culture of the Cook Islands, Culture of the Solomon Islands, Culture of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, etc. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would be better suited to splitting down to sub island groups as per the examples you've mentioned. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split -- I see very little cohesion between the separate cultures of various islands or groups. Some cultures are the result of Muslim acculturation through Arab traders. In other cases, it is the dominant effect is European colonisation. ESSAY Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references, fails WP:V. Not clear these are discussed as a group in any event - there are ESSARY concerns here as well.Icewhiz (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete If someone wants to userfy this somewhere, they can -- I agree with the above that this also needs to be split up. An article unreferenced for eleven years is not a good look. !dave 10:43, 2 February 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) 05:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Lesovsky[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with very few sources, none of which appear to be significant and non-WP:ROUTINE coverage. The coverage is the typical routine coverage from local news (statements from the coach in previews/postgame coverage) or of his hiring as a low level basketball coach. Well below the the standards of WP:NHOOPS as well. Yosemiter (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems silly, I was thinking this wouldn't make it either, but there's a good amount of coverage in the news such as The London Free Press. Turns out he was a head coach of a team in the National Basketball League of Canada which seems to be the top level of the sport professionally in the country. Passes WP:GNG. Wow.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paulmcdonald: That appears to be WP:ROUTINE game coverage of regional playoff game (in my opinion anyways), which I did mention exists in my nom as it has a couple of statements by him on what he though of his team's performance. It should also be noted that the NBL Canada may be the top Canada-only basketball league, the top league in Canada is still the NBA. Based on media coverage the NBLC gets almost as much as the D/G League (more in the Atlantic provinces and London due to its success) and the level of play is about on par with mid-level Euro leagues, the former Premier Basketball League (where some of the teams originated), the Continental Basketball Association, and the new North American Premier Basketball (where Lesovsky now coaches). But it you feel that routine game coverage with mentions and brief statements merits WP:GNG, then you have the right to your opinion. Yosemiter (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete routine coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Fails WP:NHOOPS as well. As the coach, he seems to have an obligatory quote or two in some routine game recaps. However, a meaningful biography cannot be written based merely off of the subject's own quotes. Per WP:WHYN, significant coverage is needed "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic." This is not encyclopedic enough to WP:IAR and keep an article that will never be more useful than a stub with past stints listed.—Bagumba (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Stub articles are valid articles and the sources cited are not "routine" game recaps--at least, not as defined by WP:ROUTINE and that's the definition that should be use.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Paulmcdonald: If that were true, then most every high school basketball coach would also qualify for articles. Would you argue Jaso Perez, Cresenta Valley High School girls' basketball coach is notable? He gets similar coverage in the LA Times. Maybe Aubrey Shelton, Lincoln High School boys' basketball coach in Tacoma with equivalent coverage in the Seattle Times and The News Tribune? Personally, I view game summaries as an extension of ROUTINE as they are entirely expected to be covered in local papers and are not feature articles on coaches (they would be singularly feature articles on local games, and that is definitely defined in WP:MILL as routine). Yosemiter (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) @Paul: WP:ROUTINE calls out "Planned coverage of scheduled events". The London Free Press article that you linked in your !vote was the recap of Game 2 of a series, or coverage that the newspaper planned for a scheduled event. Stubs are acceptable when they can be expanded to a whole article, which I do not believe is possible here.—Bagumba (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right now there is a lot of "planned coverage" of the 2018 State of the Union Address and there was plenty of "planned coverage" for the 2016 United States Presidential Election or Super Bowl LII. By your argument, since that was all "planned events" and only received "planned coverage" we should delete those articles too. But we won't, because that would be silly. Instead, we look at the definition that applies to sporting events in WP:ROUTINE which is "sports scores." Further, WP:ROUTINE only applies to events anyway.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:SPORTCRIT regarding a sportsperson's notability: "Local sources must be clearly independent of the subject, and must provide reports beyond routine game coverage."—Bagumba (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree. The sources are clearly independent of the subject and clearly provide reports beyond routine game coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then why the rant over WP:ROUTINE only applying to events. LOL—Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. game summaries are routine because they cover every game, and almost none of the games themselves are of individual importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 2 February 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Closed Door[edit]

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

The release of this film was pushed back to at least 2017 [40] and I can't find any evidence that it has been released. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:20, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable film which has not been released. Hagennos (talk) 04:03, 25 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. But, there shall be some definitive criterion of inclusion. (non-admin closure) ~ Winged BladesGodric 04:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bodo-language films[edit]

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

Unverifiable (WP:V). Based solely on the self-published website https://listbodolist.wordpress.com, which is not usable as a source per WP:SPS. Sandstein 22:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could the language of a notable film be unverifiable? The ones without articles should probably be purged, but I see plenty of blue links in this list and 15 articles in Category:Bodo-language films. postdlf (talk) 16:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's easy to verify, and its a valid list, which can hold 15+ articles that we already have. No objected to trimming and improvement works. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I could find no such "list" online of Bodo-language films that were not blogs or using this very same article as a source. Yet as the above !votes mention is rather easy to determine the language of any particular individual film. I suggest keeping the article and adding citations while at the same time getting ride of the non-notable films and those that don't belong. Thanks Inter&anthro (talk) 08:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this might be of intrest. Specifically pages 82-83. It contains a list of Bodo films and details their social impact. Inter&anthro (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. To avoid this list becoming indiscriminate we should remove the unreliable sources, remove every non notable list entry and set a clear inclusion criteria. Ajf773 (talk) 19:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The threshold issues with determining whether to categorize or list a film as an FOO-language film have probably been discussed many times before, and aren't unique to Bodo language or this list, so I'd look for those discussions or check with WP:FILM first if you have any questions about a particular entry. postdlf (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. as for all simialr lists. It';s a accepted type of list at WP. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 2 February 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mao Mag[edit]

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

I could not find anything that could be considered significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several mentions in newspapers and magazines and some coverage of their fashion week events. Also some book coverage. Some evidence of influence. Is it enough? I lean Weak Keep given its history and the coverage I found. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- an in-house publication of Mao Public Relations, the purpose of which is to promote the firm. The article exists for promotional purposes with language such as:
  • "Acknowledging the importance of the underground world of fashion while focusing parallel attention on what is “in” today is what makes the magazine stand out"! Etc.
No sources listed; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good faith source turns up no reliable, in-depth sources. Claim of being "a standing token of New York Fashion Week" is very much unsubstantiated.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 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) 05:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nim ui Chimmuk[edit]

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

Contested PROD. While the version I originally tagged consisted almost entirely of the text of the poem (being of dubious copyright status), this version now indicates just that the poem exists and was written by its author. I admit I have no Korean abilities, which may also impact my ability to find other transliterations of the title, but a check I made at the time of tagging didn't give anything beyond the poem's existence, which isn't notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one peripheral reference does not establish notability.--Rpclod (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As I said when I deprodded notability is clear from the English-language sources found by Google Books and Scholar searches, for example,
"most Korean people remember him as much for being the great poet who authored Nim ui chimmuk",
"he is best known for his work Nim-ui Chimmuk",
"The best works that were produced during this time, for example “Jindalaekkot” (Azalea Flowers) by Kim Sowol, “Nim-ui chimmuk” (The Silence of Love) by Han Yong-un...".
86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the sources you've provided, the first appears to be a passing mention of the author of the poem. The author has his own article as it stands, since he did a number of things in his lifetime. The second is much the same, a comment that the author himself is notable, but a passing mention that he also wrote this particular poem. The third is a mention in a footnote in a broader discussion of Korean literature, which at least has the advantage of not solely being about the author and his extra-poetic activities. I'm not convinced, though, that a scholarly aside amounts to more than a peripheral mention. Even if it did, notability still requires multiple reliable sources providing significant coverage. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. inappropriate content for an encyclopedia article. Anyway, almost certainly a copyvio. The title can be used as a redirect to the author. DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 2 February 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 Obsolete. The deletion request was made because a bold move had been made asserting that there was a primary topic. However, that bold move has now been reverted based on a request by Llywelyn, so there is no longer any valid reason to delete the dab page.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs) 14:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atooi (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation page no longer needed per WP:TWODABS. The video game company article became the primary topic for Atooi. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Not your mistake, but the move earlier was in error, done without evidence or discussion. In fact, the former name of the island remains equally/more notable than random minor video game company. Vanilla Google itself is already about half and half [and all of the company hits are here at Wikipedia, its own www.atooi.com page, its own Facebook page, and its own Twitter feed, not other people talking about it]; Google Books, there is no contest: at least 50 pages of hits for the island and absolute bupkis for the video game company; ditto Google Scholar. The majority of the clickthroughs to the dab seem to be going to the island as well rather than any clicks at all on the company page. It was a compromise leaving a dab there; if anything, the space should point at the island with a hatnote towards the company. (Honestly, with how much more traffic the island page gets than the barely-notable company, the hatnote is probably UNDUE and the dab needs to be kept IAR in order to avoid needless and inappropriate free advertising. That's a separate conversation, though.) — LlywelynII 06:52, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the move could or could not be considered errorneous, having a disambiguation page for two entries, one of which is not even titled that way anymore, is strongly against TWODABS, as is stated above. Lordtobi (✉) 07:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Go reread your policy. If there's no PRIMARYTOPIC, then dabbing is precisely what we do. Planting a link to a minor commercial entity at the top of a much, much more heavily trafficked page for rule lawyerly reasons is also in violation of the much more important NOADVERTISING policy, as mentioned above. It's better to head the page with the neutral Atooi (disambiguation) link and point at the company from there. — LlywelynII 08:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "not even titled that way anymore"? Poor argument. Beware recentism. This encyclopedia is not just about today's news. PamD 09:51, 25 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) 05:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New York State Technology Student Association[edit]

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

Notability not established for this particular state delegation of the Technology Student Association. Generally speaking, a national student organization is notable, but their individual state or local chapters are not. only (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete state level organizations of broader movements are not notable in their own right. WP:NOPAGE applies, even though some sourcing exists. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. aas with most similar, not notable for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 2 February 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) 05:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amrita Jash[edit]

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

No notability. Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (comment based on incorrect assumption) Keep very clearly notable, perfectly decent article. I do wonder if the nomination was simply an error by User:आर्यावर्त who created this AfD via the one-touch Twinkle tool and only has 29 edits on this language Wikipedia. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not by mistake or error. User:Mirandajoseph01 is Creator of this article and User:Usmankg Created This Article on Hindi Wikipedia. I'm active wikipedian since 2013, Reviewer on Hindi Wikipedia. User:Usmankg Created some article and edit on hindi Wikipedia for promote IndraStra Global related. Amrita ji is also related this. Both article is nominated for deletion on hindi wiki also. Many Ref in Article but i think person is not noteble for encyclopedia. User promoted this only. I have request to reviewer and admin on enwiki please recheck. Thanks in advance.Yogesh Kavishwar (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, I did not see your good work on the Hindu Wikipedia, however I do think the policy there and the policy here are substantially different. Since the article is not blatantly promotional or obviously lacking in notability I did not think there was a strong case to delete it. I see that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IndraStra Global has dealt with your concern of user promotion on the company, and it shows that the creator used irrelevant refernces, so I looked into this article in more detail. Really this is something you should have outlined yourself as nominator, your nomination was too short and did not include the key reason for deletion, something to remember for next time. The reference list looks good, but it isn't good. In fact all the references are either written by Amrita Jash herself or mere mentions only. I will ping Frederickmwolf who commented based on my mistake. I feel that taking this into account, the article likely fails WP:GNG, does not meet WP:Author, and was created by a conflict of interest or undisclosed paid editor. It should be deleted and I have changed my recommendation to reflect that. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as explained in above details. The article looks good, but that is a clever cover. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Keep as per Ilyina Olya Yakovna. However, need to be expanded. The language skill acquired and demonstrated on some other wikipedia edition doesn't give the आर्यावर्त an outward bragging right. Secondly, what I see he is bringing his edit war from one language edition to this "English" edition. - Frederickmwolf 9:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Admit only a quick look, but appears to be a CV of a scholar that lists lots of non-peer-reviewed works which GS shows only a cumulative total citation count of 4. Other arguments above, like that a think tank satisfies PROF c3 are nonsense. Willing to change positions if sufficient RS, demonstration of scholarly impact, or any other proof of notability is forthcoming. Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I struck the !votes made by the now blocked sock-puppet accounts. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete her work as a scholar is just not impactful enough to show that she is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 26 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) 00:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Faisal Memorial High School[edit]

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

Doesn't seem having enough notability. 333-blue at 02:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Subject cannot be verified in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 03:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then things have changed since the last time I was involved in a discussion about high schools. Every one I can remember, the article was kept and the rationale was Wiki considers them notable.MensanDeltiologist (talk) 00:30, 1 February 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 page was deleted by RHaworth. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pippi Longstocking (2020 TV series)[edit]

Pippi Longstocking (2020 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, not yet enough notability. 333-blue at 02:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Definite WP:MADEUP candidate, especially for a two year's out series. No sources found, and the usual impossible co-production by two vicious rivals in DHX and Nelvana; they aren't combining for this. Nate • (chatter) 05:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I couldn't find any sources, not in Swedish either. As the article creator has been warned for hoaxing, this is probably also a hoax. Sjö (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Babymissfortune 09:14, 25 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matchbook.com[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. The website is not covered significantly in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Also fails WP:NCORP, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, none of the references are intellectually independent, topic fails GNG and NCORP. HighKing++ 11:53, 1 February 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. This may not be a stella example, but apparently ale the minimum requirements are met. I'm not going to make anybody wait any lager by relisting this. If you still think there's problems, I suggest you hop to it and get editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Belgian beers[edit]

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

We have difficulty with lists, as the "potential for creating lists is infinite", but we tend to have difficulty defining when a list is not appropriate. WP:SALAT suggests that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ... For example, a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value." Which is what we have with List of Belgian beer. Yes, the scope has been limited by type (beer) and country (Belgium), but we are still faced with a fairly pointless task of listing all the beer brands in Belgium, of which there are at any given time well over three thousand (see the Belgian page on RateBeer - and those listed who have reviewed over 3,000 different Belgian beer brands; but this figure isn't fixed because new brands are brought onto the market, some brands change name, and others stop being made. Trying to list all the beers of Belgium is like trying to catch smoke. Which might be worth attempting if there were some point to it. But while there are some brands which are notable, the bulk are not. Essentially a list of the over three thousand beer brands in Belgium is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, unhelpful, and impossible. What we'll have is an incomplete and random list of beer brands, which may or may not exist this time next month. SilkTork (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But limit to being a list of Belgian beers with articles, to avoid being indiscriminate. If properly done, this list could be very interesting to people interested in European beers by country. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:PRODUCT. Although I personally am a big fanatic of Belgium beer, lists of products should appear on articles of those who manufacture them and not in one combined list of every manufacturer in one country. Having one huge list of every single beer in Belgium is considered unwieldy and easily becomes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ajf773 (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large and open-ended lists are valid – that's what the {{dynamic list}} template is for. See also WP:CLN. The topic is highly notable per the following list of books and so easily satisfies WP:LISTN. Any cleanup or housekeeping is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion and AfD is not cleanup. Santé / Gezondheid! Andrew D. (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Belgian Beer Book
  2. Belgian Ale
  3. 100 Belgian Beers to Try Before You Die!
  4. The Great Beers of Belgium
  5. All Belgian Beers
  6. Guide to Belgian Beers
  7. Michael Jackson's Great Beers of Belgium
  8. Belgian Abbey Beers
  9. Around Brussels in 80 Beers
  10. Lambic
  • So what's wrong with this article Beer in Belgium that is assumed would include everything those books would contain without the indiscriminate list? Ajf773 (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beer in Belgium is 50K while the page in question is about 190K. Per WP:SIZE, it's appropriate to split this content. Per WP:NOTPAPER, "Splitting long articles and leaving adequate summaries is a natural part of growth for a topic." Andrew D. (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that as as a number of sub-lists it is likely to be an issue. For context, this is a list coming to about 750,000 bytes, which I have created as 15 sub-lists. That is a far larger list project than this would be, even if you listed every verifiable beer brand ever sold in Belgium it would barely get to a quarter of the size. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nothing conceptually wrong with this list. Please take content questions (where we do have a problem) to its talk page. gidonb (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The topic meets WP:LISTN, and concerns with the article's content and style can be addressed via talk page discussion and potential subsequent copy editing. North America1000 13:09, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I note that as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia with elements of specialist encyclopedia's included where they are compatible, there is in fact a "beeropedia" included. I draw your attention to the 128 member Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer, which includes over 3000 articles. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:59, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but only if, as suggested by Ilyina, it is limited it to beers that have their own pages because as it is of no more use than specialist web sites. If this page stays as it is then there is nothing stopping the creation of other lists that would potentially run to thousands and thousands of entries. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a directory of everything that existed or exists.Domdeparis (talk) 16:46, 27 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 08:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SafeCast[edit]

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

Incoherent article mashed up from a number of unrelated topics. Two match the capitalisation of the title, one of which was added by the trademark owner, a serial promoter of his business interests, sourced from PR, and the other is basically unsourced with dollops of WP:HOWTO. Guy (Help!) 00:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it could maybe be speedy deleted as incomprehensible ramblings with no indication of significance. Basically the article is bout three random things that are not notable, mashed together in a odd mix. I can't see how it meets any of the policies for inclusion. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 04:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It definitely can't be speedied. Before recent changes added the garble at the top it was just a (nigh unsourced) article about some now-defunct (probably non-notable) DRM software. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Which is why I did not nuke it. Even I am not quite that WP:ROUGE. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it should be deleted, my recommendation stands even though speedy deletion is not a viable option. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:12, 25 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. Masem (t) 04:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC) There is clearly independent sourcing for the Satellite Awards in general (eg Hollywood Reporter), including both the nominees and awards. As a list article to document the nominees without having one massive large past, this seems completely reasonable. I will point out that as a list artcile, WP:NLIST applies - meaning that lists are not as subject to the GNG as non-list articles.[reply]

Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture[edit]

Satellite Award for Best Actor – Motion Picture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability per WP:N and WP:NFILMS. No independent reliable sources discuss this as a topic directly and in detail. Also, notability is not inherited per WP:INHERITORG. I made this page a redirect to the main page ("Satellite Awards") per alternatives to deletion WP:ATD-R. The redirect has been reverted. So, here we are. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. Established award that has been mentioned in numerous publications at the time of ceremony. Shall I link every one to prove that? For that matter, Academy Award for Best Actor is self-referential by AMPAS, nominate it and the hundreds of other actor awards as well. — Wyliepedia 00:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please link to coverage in independent reliable sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail providing significant coverage. I don't think there is any such coverage. The references in this article are connected to the awards - which is not independent coverage. The actor might receive an award but notability is not inherited from the actor. Also, this award is not related to the Academy Awards so it has no bearing on this topic or this discussion. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The article lacks multiple reliable sources. Hollywood and its actors are losing their luster and profitability - especially post Harvey Weinstein scandal. The award will probably receive lower and lower public interest.Knox490 (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Traintalk 19:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple child pages are not a sufficient reason for "keep". Each page is supposed to fulfill the notability criteria per WP:GNG. This one does not. And, Wikipedia is not a directory WP:DIR. NFILMS does not really apply to awards ceremonies so it was not necessary for me to bring NFILMS into the nomination. NFILMS applies to films and not awards. This was sent to AfD because the redirect was undone, which was created in the first place as an appropriate alternative to deletion.
Once the redirect was undone, I had no choice but take it to AfD. I am not going to engage in an edit war. The reason the other pages have not been taken to AfD is because those that were redirected satisfied the alternate to deletion criteria. The ones that have not been redirected did not come across my editing path. And still, those have nothing to do with this. Undoing the redirects to those pages that I redirected is premature. Stuff like this makes editing more difficult than it needs to be.
The rationale that was used to undo this redirect was not a rationale that had anything to do with notability - it said, "Where else would you like to see the best actors receiving this award? Especially the nominees, too. Nav pane itself wouldn't be sufficient." This seems rhetorical, and does not apply any notability criteria. The reason this page does not satisfy GNG or notability criteria is because the available sources are not sufficient. Take a look at the references:
  1. [41] not an independent source if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. see WP:N Also, this is not signifigant coverage, it does not discuss the topic in detail per WP:GNG . It lists award winners and says nothing about the topic.
  2. [42] The subject of this source is Viggo Mortensen who one an award. This is not significant coverage to the topic. There is passing mention of this award while it discusses several people.
  3. [43] the subject is a nomination for "12 Years a Slave" a film, not best actor. It lists other award categories but this is not addressing the topic directly and in detail... see GNG.
  4. [44] not independent coverage. This is the company behind the awards that put up this web page.
  5. [45] this covers award winners in certain categories featuring the film spotlight. This is not signifigant coverage. Best actor is passing mention.
  6. [46] not independent coverage. This is the company behind the awards that put up this web page.
  7. [47] does not cover this topic in detail - not signifigant coverage.
  8. [48] does not cover this topic in detail - not signifigant coverage.
Once again, just to be clear, notability is not inherited from film actors, directors, producers, award winning films, and other nomination programs such as the Oscars and so on. The reason WP:INHERITORG was quoted is because it seems the available sourcing seems to rely on and consist of actors, directors, etc. receiving awards. This is not coverage of the topic, this is people and films receiving awards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references related to actors winning the award are completely relevant to the award and cannot be included in notability is not inherited. If the awards were not notable the actors would not bother with them and no coverage would ensue Atlantic306 (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedurally relisting per concern on my user talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:57, 25 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2018_January_25&oldid=1142616331"