Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 January	9 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pelosi Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Just because his mam is famous does not make the son so. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I took a look at the article and it's editing history before stubbing it. What press he's getting seems to be because of his mother, rather than of any notability of his own. --Ronz (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some new sources added to the article, but none demonstrate notability beyond the connection with his mother, and most are just press releases which apparently have been used as the main sourcing for the entire article in violation of BLP and SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not inherit notability from his famous mother, and his own career doesn't look like it meets notability guidelines either for general notability or politicians. PohranicniStraze (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any assertion of notability. Maybe redirect to Mom? FloridaArmy (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much new coverage since the previous deletion discussion, I don't believe the coverage I've seen meets WP:BASIC. --joe decker ^talk 06:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not inherited. Anmccaff (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--what a terrible puff piece. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 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) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C.J. Allen (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP. Sourced that he is a producer for a Korean red link TV show (? Assuming it's a TV show) and for an unlinked and unsourced Canadian TV show (again, assuming). Both are non-notable and notability isn't even inherited, so neither should non-notability. JesseRafe (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the coverage necessary to pass GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable source coverage needed to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Gypsies[edit]

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

Just a gathering of random people who share a common, generic term. No info about the use of the term proper, just a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a title applied to various people in reliable sources and there are many sources that discuss the concept of King of the Gypsies in Gypsy culture. Just because it doesn't have a formal definition or authority or regalia isn't reason for deletion. Nominator seems to be calling for improvement ("info about the use of the term proper") rather than deletion, and "just a list" is not reason for deletion. If the page was deleted, then it would have to be replaced by a disambiguation page linking to everybody on WP who has been called King of the Gypsies - I don't think that's a superior outcome. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it is well sourced and of cultural importance. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this is a widely attested term. However calling it "well sourced" is rubbish. On the other hand, scholarly writing on Romani people in the United States especially is very sub-standard, so the fact that the US sections is downright atrocious is not surprising.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and passes WP:GNG. Lacypaperclip (talk) 04:41, 14 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 All Ladies League. Content is already there, so no need to merge. ansh 666 02:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women Economic Forum[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. First, it doesn't establish organizational notability by independent references, and a Google search doesn't find the appropriate independent coverage, only the usual primary and vanity hits. Second, it is in a highly promotional tone, not neutral. Taking out all of the promotional stuff wouldn't leave much, and wouldn't address marginal notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to All Ladies Leafue, the parent organization. FloridaArmy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to All Ladies League. That article already contains a lot of information about this forum (more than this article does actually). --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 15 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. Deleted per CSD G5. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EFC Limited[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional tone. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. References provided are either mentions-in-passing (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but does not even make any claims to notability within the article text. Loopy30 (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mara MacDonald[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist, not referenced to the degree reliable source coverage required to make her notable. There's no discernible claim of notability here besides the fact that she exists, and the only sources are her (deadlinked) staff bio on the website of her employer and a PDF of an advertisement for the high school she attended. As always, however, journalists are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to be the subject of reliable source coverage, in media other than their own employer, for an article to become appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No RS of a local media person makes this an uncontroversial case. Likely a vanity page from the earlier days of WP, judging from the SPA-creator's record. Agricola44 (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant achievements or influence. Fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Synthwave (1980s genre)[edit]

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

Genre does not seem to actually exist. Tagged as hoax. Sources cited do not back up the info or do not exist. Most of the so-called artists don't seem to exist either. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if it's not a hoax, the sources cited are so obscure and so patchy that the "genre" was ephemeral and trivia - if its not worth reliable sources mentioning it now (and we've been asking for those for years), then it's not appropriate to have a Wikipedia article about it. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 21:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Can't find much about it. Probably was never recognized outside of some small circle of German record collectors in the '80s.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Somebody is making stuff up. Binksternet (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this article was originally crafted by a few editors who insisted that Synthwave (2000s genre) is a misnomer, and that earlier use of the term "synth wave", "synthwave" for new wave music in the 80s "has precedence" or somesuch. No one ever provided sources of this being a (sub)genre of its own though, and hence this article has ended up as just a stub with no real substance. Maybe it can be saved, but if someone wants to do that, I'd suggest at minimum moving this to a draft until there's some real content in it. I do not see any evidence that this is an outright hoax, but there's definitely a vibe of WP:SYNTH. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 12:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of science[edit]

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

Largely unsourced, unfocused, untouched Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nominator has not given any valid grounds for deletion. I did a cursory look at the sources and found that Maslow (1966) has 1.7k cites in Google scholar, and Feist (2008) has 282, so it does appear to be a notable academic sub-discipline. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep - This is certainly not a notable field of psychology, and 1700 citations on Google Scholar is not very many for a book published by a prominent psychologist in 1966. By comparison, Maslow's other works have 20-40,000 citations, so this is clearly one of his lesser works. However, there are several reliable references listed here and if the "suggested reading" section can be incorporated inline, I think that we have the beginnings of a decent article here. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight thousand GS hits for the article title, few of which appear to be false positives. As a subject, it seems to have lagged behind the sociology of science in growth, but it's worth having an article on. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have an article on Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, so I don't see why we can't keep this article. Also, this article has a long list called "Suggested Readings", although I don't see why this can't be called "Further Reading". Vorbee (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big Time Records (United States)[edit]

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

A non-notable record label. Spammy tone and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor existing sources with no further notable sources found after an online search. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concur with submitter. Seems promotional, only 3 artists listed, none of which have articles, and little to no coverage outside of this article. 65 HC A7 23:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Ben MacDui per CSD G6 and CSD G7. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cergutuzumab amunaleukin[edit]

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

This drug is only in phase I clinical trials. Rule of thumb for experimental drug notability requires phase II trials. Natureium (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly moved to User:Tyranitar_Man/Cergutuzumab_amunaleukin. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afasevikumab for rationale. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navicixizumab[edit]

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

Rule of thumb for experimental drug notability requires phase II trials. This drug is in phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable. Fails WP:PHARM. Still in Phase I trials. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 13:04, 11 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 moved to user space. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 18:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afasevikumab[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. According to what I could find online, development was abandoned at phase I. Rule of thumb for experimental drug notability requires phase II trials. Natureium (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Tyranitar Man (who commented above in favor of userfying) is the sole contributor of the article, I am going to go ahead, move a copy to their userspace, and tag the mainspace for speedy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to User:Tyranitar Man/Afasevikumab, and speedy requested for the redirect currently in place. If anyone contests, feel free to revert my actions. It is probably best to keep the AfD open for a day or so, though. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. with no prejudice to recreation in the future if suitable sources are found. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:13, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Musoke-Nteyafas[edit]

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

She is not notable at all. The publications she has been published in are non-notable, and seem to be of questionable quality. She is also inactive as a journalist or, if she writes, has no current web presence to speak of. It is a weak biography that should have been removed a long time ago. Cartney23 (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Megalibrarygirl:... 104.163.153.162 (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some references and tried to clean up a bit. All of my instincts think she's likely notable, but I'm not getting the hits I need to really say either way. I'm flummoxed. If anyone finds more, ping me to weigh in. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I applaud Megalibrarygirl's efforts, though I agree with her doubts about whether it's enough — if the strongest source that can be provided is her contributor biography at the top of her section in an anthology she contributed to, then that's not really a solid WP:AUTHOR pass because she would have written it herself. And the other two sources I can actually see aren't brilliant ones either (the Gale one just leads me to a login page.) But I ran a ProQuest search as well, and literally the only new hit I got for her there was a brief soundbite from 2008 about her hopes for the Obama presidency. Our inclusion standards in 2018 have been tightened up considerably due to systemic abuse of our processes, and are now much more strongly tied to sourceability — unlike 2005 when people's gut feelings about whether the topic sounded notable could more easily muddy up the waters — and under 2018 standards, she's just not sourceable enough. There's not a single keep argument in the original discussion (and yes, I'm including my own) that would pass muster in an AFD discussion today. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial sense was delete. If Megalibrarygirl cannot suss out good refs, I am now certain they do not exist.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears as if the subject of the article was the initial author of the article in 2005... or someone with the same name. Theredproject (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Lampariello[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person with no strong subject-specific claim of notability and no strong reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG. The notability claim is that he speaks a lot of languages and works as a language instructor, which isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of solid sources about him -- but the references consist of three pieces of his own writing, two unreliable commercial blogs, three brief namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself. These are not the kind of sources it takes to make someone notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wrote the article, and I admit, there are no strong references for him (so no high profile newspaper interviews etc) - Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if speaking 12 languages were some sort of automatic-in-Wikipedia trigger, that would need to be reliably sourced. But it's not. I'm not seeing the sort of references one would want to establish notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Bearcat and Nat Gertler. Khiikiat (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom's points, fails WP:NOTE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:07, 12 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 clean up the copyvio. ansh 666 02:13, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Lucas[edit]

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

I'm in a real quandry here. The subject is probably notable, but the actual text of the article is an extensive copyvio of this website, so much so I think we're looking at WP:TNT. Subject is the father of Christopher Lucas, which I've also nominated for deletion. And, just to make things more confusing, ChrisLucas1968 has edited this article, so some WP:COI issues there. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A blind sports broadcaster is a strong claim of notability. Sources include this one, an extensive profile in The New York Times, among other in-depth sources; read it in its entirety before you claim it doesn't support notability. A user named ChrisLucas1968 has edited the article, but so have about 50-60 other editors over the nine-plus years that the article has existed, so COI is not a valid justification. The article should be cleaned up, but that's a task for editing, not AfD. Alansohn (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. The fact that one editor out of 60+ may or may not have a COI is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 13:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I get that AfD is not cleanup, but the very first revision, from 2008 of this article is where the copyvio started. The appropriated text is so extensive, I don't see any practical way to resolve the copyvio other than deleting this. WP:COPYVIO says, If there is no such older version, you may be able to re-write the page from scratch, but failing that, the page will normally need to be deleted. For such, read, non-infringing. I suppose I could hack this back to a stub, and hope somebody comes along and does a re-write from scratch, but I'm not sure that's better than just deleting it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright note: The Yes Network article was published August 6, 2008, while the original article here was created May 20, 2008. That being said this does appear to have been modified a great deal since, so that source itself appears ok. That being, said, this appears to be a very clear copyvio, but again the oldest link i can find is November 2008, so I have no idea who copied who. The only thing I'm able to find that "might" make it clear is that the YES network reference does self-note EdLucas.org, but again that doesn't make it clear which way the copyvio went. The subject is notable no one doubts that, but this does need significant cleanup whether or not it's determined to be a copyvio (My ruling is inconclusive, alas). Wizardman 16:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(cross-posted from my talk page) There's a website created by the Computer Science Dept at Old Dominion University, "Carbon Dating the Web", and it shows a creation of the www.edlucas.org page at "2007-06-29T19:30:06". While we don't have an archived copy of any versions older than August 2008 and thus no conclusive proof, my guess is that the Wikipedia article is a copy of http://www.edlucas.org/about.html rather than the other way around. Adding: That being said, the article can probably be rescued by removing/re-writing the copy vio parts; it's not 100% copied. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:18, 13 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. Moving and refocusing the article can be discussed on the talk page. ansh 666 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Peace and Peace Research[edit]

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

individual academic paper, notable by itself, only in context of the author's work. It is not clear that the 3rd party references are references substantially tho this particular paper, or to the author's work in general, or to the problem that he has studied. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. Do we do that, articles for individual journal articles? At more than 5000 cites, this is definitely is a "seminal" work, but generally even heavier hitters tend to form part of the originator's article or an article discussing the wider topic (e.g. Hirotugu Akaike/Akaike information criterion at 38k+ [1]). On the gripping hand, that paper seems complex enough to merit article-length treatment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Conflict Triangle", that way it isn't specifically referring to the paper but rather the main theory being discussed within it EvilxFish (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept that as a rename. It would dealwith some of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Conflict Triangle SeraphWiki (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article (bearing in mind its title) does not have any focus and is an opinion essay on a topic. To me, it fails to establish the notability of the article in itself (c.f. On the Origin of Species). So Rename to Conflict Triangle may be appropriate with some cleanup to ensure it retains focus and notability, or alternatively a redirect to Johan Galtung. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of notability, reliable sources, and focus. Changing the name won't fix this. See my rationale in comments and extra comments below. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hold the horses up here. Discussions are forming to gain consensus to rename the article and I am trying to figure out how that is going to "fix" ANYTHING. I am still at 1)- "there are issues", and 2)- "Do we do that?" (normally, some exceptions, or at all) on a 26 page research journal (academic paper) article. The "gripping" part is notability "of this subject and article". Being complex enough to merit article-length treatment would just mean the introduction of even more WP:OR and synthesis than is already evident. Objectively re-read the "paper" and look at the primary source. After that, and considering the lack of coverage in reliable sources "on this subject", with what is presented in the article, and look at the article again. The "suggested" target title (Conflict Triangle) is one concept touched on in the "paper". How can just changing the title to a more narrow area solve anything? Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments:

This is certainly an interesting area but with a vague overall concept not directly dealt with in reliable sources. The "paper" is all over the map as is this article. Look at the Direct Violence section with an unsourced first paragraph. This sets the stage for the following paragraphs and I see synthesis. There are beginning references like Malhotra, Anju. "Solutions to End Child Marriage", and the swing into what appears to be fringe theories. Even if someone can point me to a connection in the "paper" to content related to child marriage, and the overall subject of this article, PLEASE do, look at it again. I am all for being against "child marriage', but this content presents a biased and POV view from the ICRW that: "Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental human rights violation.". Yes this is content (and can be deleted) but a lack of overall reliable sources to tie this as well as other forks into the article is how we end up with this mess and a future article so broad as to be worthless and generally unsupported by reliable sources.

It gets worse. The next unsourced section (Reinforcing Factors): "Galtung focuses a section of the paper", refers to content from the primary source with no text–source integrity so we have to read the whole thing to try to determine anything.

More on getting "worse": The citation style pointing to references. I am to believe that we provide an inline citation to provide verification of text, providing text–source integrity, of the content proceeding the reference. In this article we have a beginning reference that supports a couple of lines then a whole lot of actually unsupported content. Look at the third and fourth paragraphs of of the Direct Violence section, or for that matter the whole article is the same, like with the Cultural Violence section. This is a mess that changing the title will not fix. Redirecting to a section in the Johan Galtung concerning the "paper" (that would be appropriate) would mean we would need to get rid of all the "junk", that is a majority of the article, and place it in a section. I could not even verify the content of the Criticism section. The first reference "Brewer, John D. (2010). Peace processes: a Sociological Approach. Polity Press" should support content that includes "Johan Galtung's Conflict Triangle and Peace Research paper are widely cited as the foundational pieces of theory". The second reference (Lawler, Peter (1995). A Question of Values: Johan Galtung's Peace Research. Lynne Rienner) in the second paragraph supports "Galtung uses a positivist approach". This is a 267 page book, again with no actual text–source integrity, lacking page numbers. I would submit that maintaining any hope of "focus" with a stand-alone article would be near impossible, even if we could renamed it Johan Galtung (Violence Peace and Peace Research) as a split, so I see an interesting area attempted to be presented in an un-salvageable article. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has sufficient resources and valuable content. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adorini (TV series)[edit]

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

~~Unsourced page for TV series. No coverage on Google. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)~~ — HindWIKI (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Singer Jethu Sisodiya (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 21:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- HindWiki^Connect 02:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – difficult to find even trivial mentions in reliable sources, not notable. PriceDL (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha. This might (or might not; I'm not sure...) be a good source. Adam9007 (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources exist to demonstrate notability, although there is a page on the India Times suggesting the show does exist [[2]], with multiple episodes. With no notability, it merits nothing more than being on a list of programs. It is already listed at List of programs broadcast by Star Jalsha, and at Star Jalsha#List of currently broadcast programs. Indeed, it's not worth even trying to find content to merge. See deletion history for Adorini and Draft:Adorini - this was apparently recreated to circumvent consensus. Very suspicious that the original article was deleted twice in March 2015 and yet this version says the show premiered on Sept. 4, 2017. Might need a SALT. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. 1 (non-admin closure) Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Dufour[edit]

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

Non notable player and manager. Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:ANYBIO Domdeparis (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the claim that he fails NFOOTY is untrue. He has managed in both the Belgian Pro League and the French Ligue 2, both of which are fully professional leagues (see NFOOTY criterion 2). BigDom (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw my mistake he does meet the topic specific criteria but there are some errors that need correcting especially in the info box. He can't have played in a senior team at the age of 10 can he? There is a serious lack of sources to show he meets GNG which is necessary for any page as per the FAQS at the top of the NFOOTY page. Also according to the French page he is not unemployed, maybe the phrase should read he has not managed a team since being sacked which is not the same thing and is also the kind of phrase to be avoided because as soon as he finds a new manager's job the information is erroneous rather than just needing to be updated. Domdeparis (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Lucas[edit]

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP, tagged 2-1/2 years ago and still not brought into compliance. My own searching failed to find anything that would establish WP:N. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Lucas -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He's done some minor voice acting work and appeared in some bit acting parts. The claim of notability is week and the sourcing is non-existent, either in the article or in a Google search. He may be his father's son, but he's no Ed Lucas. Alansohn (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unrefferenced article, since we do not count non-reliable sources are references.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Elsamni[edit]

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

This footballer has had three clubs during his career; in a lower Egyptian league, as a "trainee" and finally with a university. Not close to professional. Geschichte (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any indication that he might pass WP:NSOCCER or WP:GNG. Jack N. Stock (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. NZFC^(talk) 04:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not met our overly inclusive criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mohd Junaidi Shafiai[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 17:00, 12 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. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Esquivalience (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was deleted as it was created by a sockpuppet violating their block (WP:CSD#G5), not because of this AfD or its result. Esquivalience (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emad Hantol[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:ANYBIO notability. - MrX 17:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL with (at least) 17 appearances in the Saudi Professional League (which is fully-professional). Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 21:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems nominator did not understand WP:ANYBIO. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY Atlantic306 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Sampaio[edit]

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

Per WP:ENT there's no evidence of--significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Prburley (talk)

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Prburley: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 17:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 15 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) 16:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nirankar Singh Neki[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meeds WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Cited sources are trivial listings, a resume, etc. - MrX 17:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not much here. JohnInDC (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBIO. All references are passing mention or primary sources. A search on Limca book of Records also did not find anything. Hagennos (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hamara Tiranga[edit]

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

Second deletion nomination. The last AfD closed as "soft delete", but the only contrary voice was (not surprisingly) a a sockpuppet of someone known for using Wikipedia for promotional purposes.

Article has been recreated, but yet again, article creator has failed to establish notability, and like before, there doesn't seem to be any independent coverage of this film from reliable sources beyond this interview and this Bollywood Hungama data sheet. And again, the article creator didn't even establish when principal photography began, so it technically fails WP:NFF. I guess we're taking his word for it that the film is being released 19 January 2018.

Article was also nommed for speedy deletion. Article creator's defense for why speedy deletion should not occur: "It is a upcoming film to be released in Maharashtra and Gujarat on the 19th of Januasry. The movie stars prominent Indian actors and actresses who have significantly contributed in the making of the Bollywood Film Industry. The film has credible newspaper coverage's expected in a few days. This film is based on a true story." So we're waiting for the film's promotional staff to get off their asses and start doing press releases, so that we can consider the film notable in a few days? Give me a break. This is a promotional article for a non-notable film. Also, notability is not inherited, so it doesn't matter that the film has notable actors. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article created by a SPA. Could not find any coverage on mainstream media other than primary sources. Hagennos (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jakob (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018 in science[edit]

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

Mainly per WP:NOTNEWS. Some of these are sourced to press releases as well. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be any clear inclusion criteria in place for this (that I could find). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see 2017 in science, 2016 in science, etc. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, and other stuff exists. I was just starting here to test the waters, but many of those have similar sourcing problems and issues of indiscriminate inclusion of items. (I count 8 items sourced to phys.org in the 2017 article, which isn't reliable). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing issues isn’t a reason to delete the article. This is a valid series of articles, and your deletion rationale rests on it not being news. Scientific discoveries happen every day, so of course it would be cited to press releases. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources, fwiw. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - yes - agree with comments by User:Hurricanehink mobile above - article is worthy - and sufficiently reliable to alert those interested to the more responsible scientific literature - no problem whatsoever in improving/updating supporting references to even better citations (if available) of course - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BRIEF Followup - re the "2018 in science" page - seems one (or more?) of the following may apply? - at least to some extent? => WP:Ignore All Rules, WP:IAR-abg, WP:IARxC, WP:UIAR, WP:NOTBURO, WP:FATRATT - iac - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - agree with comments above. The deletion of this article would logically imply the deletion of all or most Year in Topic articles and would represent a large-scale policy change in the wiki. If you intend to make such a policy change, I certainly don't think this is the way to go about it. 96.59.35.98 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of an article series with highly useful articles. Feel free to use the discussion page if you want to discuss the inclusion criteria. Meanwhile can someone WP:SNOWBALL this? --mfb (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment. The keep !votes above are mainly by regular contributors to this article (and related). A speedy keep at this point is inappropriate until others can weigh in (this hasn't even been deletion sorted yet). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be surprising that some comments, especially early on, come from users who contribute to an article and have it on their watchlist. This doesn’t make them less valid. On the contrary, these are the editors who know the articles best. --mfb (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not surprising at all, but what I was saying is that basing a SNOW keep on just a few regulars would be inappropriate. The sorters-that-be seemed to have missed this for some reason, so I went ahead and added it to science and to tech. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have never edited this type of page. Indeed, I hate seeing future pages for years ahead for things like sports when no events have yet happened. That said, this science-related page is part of a series of informative and potentially useful pages which already contains notable content just 8 days into 2018. The events are all (or mostly) notable, though I would like to see citations supporting predictable and guaranteed future events like total eclipses - to lead users to where in the world those events can be observed. Past pages have grown and become very good encyclopaedic resumes of each particular year. viz 2014 in science; 2015 in science; 2016 in science; 2017 in science. I actually do think it merits a speedy keep for once. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The eclipses have links, we have articles for them decades into the future where you can check the visibility. --mfb (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I didn't know we had pages like this, but it's a reasonable way to classify and organize. We could quibble and quarrel over inclusion criteria, but that's an argument for another venue, and the basic concept of this page is sound. XOR'easter (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am anonymous user, and rarely make any changes. However I must say, 20XX_in_science articles are my main source of information. Every other news place I've seen includes a whole bunch of ad like material.. This wikipedia listing does not have the filler articles and other nonsense. Deacon Vorbis sounds like he really knows the policies of wikipedia very well. I now have learned that there is a "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" policy. But that is sad to me, as I don't have any good alternatives! And that includes wikinews and wikisource! 68.12.125.11 (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --110.93.240.216 (talk) 03:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am simply amazed, shocked and horrified that anyone would suggest this page for deletion. These science pages have been updated for many years, and contain a wealth of information on scientific progress and discoveries. They are literally the main reason I edit Wikipedia. Shame on you for nominating this for deletion. Wjfox2005 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shame on you"? You realize this is a discussion and is part of the Wikipedia process, right? If they don't believe the article belongs here, they can nominate it for deletion. It's not a personal insult. Natureium (talk) 15:39, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep I agree with Wjfox2005 and everyone on this page, I am amazed that such thing has been nominated for deletion and it is to show scientific progress within 2018 and beyond through Wikipedia also shame on the person who nominated this for deletion. D Eaketts (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Doubts about WP:RS in the article and inclusion criteria can be addressed on the talkpage of the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with all the other folks voicing support, I believe the 2018 in science article shouldn't be deleted. Leave it to a controversy to make me feel the need to edit for the first time :D 10:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep - Reason: The article is worthy. It's content format brings in a priorization, which distringuishes it from unpriorized scientific news stream. This difference makes this article a valuable and meaningful source for keeping a meaningful overview of what's happening in the world. It would be nice, if the quality of the article would explore the room for improvement it still has, but I see no crucial deficites regarding this. Another argument for keeping this article is that it's a nice counterweight in times of misinformation, propaganda, and idiologically motivated deletion of scientific data, etc., where it even becomes necessary to make a March for Science. Facing this struggle to hold up evidence based science it's of special importance that Wikipedia offers the public a strong, broad, and independent information platform of what meaningful events are happening in science over the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.32.85.50 (talk)
Keep while the criticisms leveled above against the nom are over the top, this is a reasonable and encyclopedic subject. Lepricavark (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

State Sponsors of Terrorism[edit]

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

Fork of State-sponsored terrorism Completely redundant Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a clear distinction between the designation, which is a political determination, and the general assertion of a state actually being a sponsor of terrorism. There are many countries that are asserted to sponsor terrorism but do not receive the designation, and instances where a state has been added to or removed from the list for transparently political reasons that have nothing to do with any change in the behavior of the state. bd2412 T 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about the United States Department of State designation which is distinct from State-sponsored terrorism (which is about the concept in general). The name possibly should have a (United States) in the title to make this clear.Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom appears to misunderstand the nature of this list, which is tightly defined, well written and well sourced. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This page is not a fork. Lepricavark (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.this article is clever and has no innacuracy,so there is no reason for deleting it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregorius deretius (talk • contribs) 10:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep United States Department of State designation which is distinct from State-sponsored terrorism and this has a significant coverage in reliable sources and the impact of USA designating a country as a terrorist state is significant. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The nomination is completely off the mark. These topics are related but not redundant. Both pass GNG with flying colors. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this meets all content guidelines for notability. -- Dane ^talk 19:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with request for WP:SNOW close per all above. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:29, 13 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) 17:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Samuel George Institute of Engineering and Technology[edit]

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

Nothing in here. Fails WP:GNG Hagennos (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — LeoFrank ^Talk 16:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding in-depth secondary coverage to establish notability other than the fact it exists after a few Google pages. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:05, 12 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) 17:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vee Technologies[edit]

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

Most of this article's content and references are about the family history of the company founder, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. (I have left the 2 paragraphs about the Sona Valliappa Group in place for the moment but they should be deleted if the AfD decision is to keep the article.) What remains is a brief Globe and Mail Q&A with the founder, in conjunction with a speaking engagement, and a brief quote from him among others about the implications of possible changes in US healthcare legislation. These provide basic verification but neither they nor inclusion in an Inc 500 fastest-growing company list appear to me sufficient to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. A previous WP:PROD by Msnicki had the rationale "Only one source offered and it doesn't even mention the subject. Googling, I was unable to find even one reliable independent secondary source to support notability. I don't believe such evidence of notability exists." The Prod was removed by the article creator (who is now blocked). (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocko Valliappa on the company founder, which was closed as a delete-and-redirect to this article.) AllyD (talk) 15:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corporate spam, all the sources I can find are press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORGDEPTH.- MrX 17:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and article written as a webpage of the company and to be deleted as per WP:NOTWEBHOST Hagennos (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MT Train^Discuss 14:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and appears to be promotional. -- Dane ^talk 19:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thurman (band)[edit]

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

Utterly fails WP:BAND. A7 declined without comment. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 2 refs to their discography, some external links which mention them but don't establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Kadry[edit]

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

I'm admin in Arabic Wikipedia and Arabic is my native language, this article is purely (WP:FAKE and Self-published sources) and all references are hoax, all this information are essays or opinion passed off as neutral facts, just interviews with him or information according to him (many newspapers copied the some text from another newspapers), and clearly he use public relations to make a fake fame.

for Example: this person claims he signed with H&M and Gap Inc (no references from this agencies), he claims that he is actor in some Arabic movies and TVs but this isn't true and his name isn't listed in any works, he claims (in newspapers) that he make a photo session with Paris Hilton but there is no photos with her and this news is hoax.

this article also claim he is international model but no references in English or another languages, and this articles deleted many times in Arwiki after we make a lot of searches and investigates about him --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator: Hello there, first of all you can't assume that the references are hoax and fake when it's published by high and well known media websites, second the arabic wikipedia has nothing to do with the english wikipedia, it was deleted serveral times cause it was vandaled and being edited by literally everyone, and since you know nothing I can explain, there is nothing called signed with H&M or gap, he can sign with an agency and WORK/MODEL for brands like H&M and else, so don't just put up anything, he's still in the beginning of the acting career, his name shouldn't be listed in any movies as a "star" when he does secondary roles and workshops, and if you can check his instagram, he knows paris well and she follows him on instagram and interacts with him, and she confirmed that! he doesn't have to post a picture with her just to prove it when she already follows/supports him and he has hundred thousands of fans and followers, so everything in the references and everything is authentic and not fake, close the discussion, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofijack (talk • contribs) 17:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sofijack appears to have a conflict of interest based on this talk page comment where he asserts to be the photographer of the picture of Kadry in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

all this newspapers publish this information according to him or interview with him, and this are not a reliable sources, if you say the true where are the evidences? no English or Italian references and no references from any agencies about him, and I checked his Instagram account, just some photos with celebrities and nothing about his claimed works --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since I don't know Arabic, I have to defer to people that do. However the nominator does know Arabic and I find his argument for deletion persuasive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He knows Arabic but he doesn't know anything about what he is saying, he has a poor grammar plus he is saying that based on the arabic wikipedia getting deleted several times, thats the point, it was vandaled and edited by everyone thats the reason, so it shouldn't be deleted, the references prove every point in the article. please close this discussion, he knows nothing about english wikipedia, he can just say whatever he want on arabic.

my grammar is weak but I know the policies well in English Wikipedia --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 04:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deferring to the nom's judgement.--SamHolt6 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Blake (American-born journalist)[edit]

(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:DGG with the following rationale "evidence that the author or the book might be notable". Well, even if a book he wrote is notable, one notable book is not likely to be enough to establish notability per WP:AUTHOR unless said work was really major (and in that case we would be very likely to get more sources on the author which would make them pass NBIO due to basic coverage), and in general, notability is not inherited. IF his book is notable and someone were to write an article on it, this could be soft deleted by redirecting it there, or even merging, but on its own, I don't see what makes him notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just being a journalist is not enough to show notability. We need reliable coverage of him and his work, which is lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as endorsed WP:PROD. ansh 666 02:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Calls[edit]

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

Not notable Christian organisation Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak/soft delete. Would need more sources than the current one paragraph in a newspaper to establish notability. Suggest soft delete by redirecting to one of the related bios (founder?) if better sources are not found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 02:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Huntley Watt (computer scientist)[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see quite a bit of good sources from 2009 to 2017 - "Stephen Watt" hacker google news. His 2009 conviction is widely covered. His prison stint is covered. And his post-prison activities are also covered - e.g. this piece covers anti-NSA activities from 2014.Icewhiz (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Icewhiz. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Icewhiz which covers it very well. Plus WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This (Stephen Watt) person is cited on may pages and I though it would be nice to have a dedicated page on him. I don't mind if the article about him is merged on a more general page (ie: Antisec Movement, Albert_Gonzalez#TJX_Companies...) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet the WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ansh 666 02:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

American intervention in Libya[edit]

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

There are a lot of unsourced facts in article. I think we need to remove it and add sourced information to Libya–United States relations Arthistorian1977 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

call in an airstrike, er, delete "List of US airstrikes in Libya since August 2016" simply doesn't strike me as an encyclopedic approach to the subject, so some serious WP:TNT application seems called for, at the least. And I too wonder about the sourcing: who actually counts as a reliable source for this kind of information? Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libya-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Should be renamed (to included year), and better sourced, but from a BEFORE it does seem this is notable. Other air campaigns have articles - e.g. 2011 military intervention in Libya.Icewhiz (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but other articles have information beyond unsourced list of airstrikes. If we remove the unsourced information, nothing remains in this article. It's at least case of WP:TNT, which if not deleted, should be draftified and completely reworked. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition, it's partially duplicates Libyan Civil War (2014-present). Arthistorian1977 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm somewhat sympathetic to TNT here, however there are sources in the article. And the infobox and lead are Ok. I would probably re-title to American Intervention in Libyan Civil War (2014–present). I do think the subject, merits of the current prose and sourcing aside, does have legs for notability.Icewhiz (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources cover the small amount of information in the article. Also, renaming to American Intervention in Libyan Civil War (2014–present) means adding significant information about the intervention and not just list of airstrikes. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The intervention seems to be, in this case, primarily low-rate sorties and probably intel as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marines' Hymn. American intervention in Libya has been going on for a long time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with the fact that American intervention in Libya has been going on for a long time. As I mentioned, this is just a list of airstrikes of 2016-2017, unsourced and not related to article title. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anyone actually took the time to look at the actual references they would know that the airstrikes August through December of 2016, can be found under the same link entered [3] Every airstrike can be found on there. Theres no reason to reference the same thing more than 3 times. We can however reorder the article into all airstrikes in August, September, October ext under a different column each time and to have them categorized together. This article is important as there is no official article whatsoever on Wikipedia that fully covers the operations conducted by the United States in the country of Libya post-Gaddafi coup. The United States is currently covertly running a war in the country against the ISIS, and supporting the newly formed government against the militants and opposing forces attempting to overthrow it. Whether its airstrikes, Special Forces, active patrolling troops, this particular conflict has to be covered and it must be here. IMO the the article will get better and will eventually sprout into a full and "acceptable" page, but the conflict is too new right now. I originally began the article. And since I see the it is quite sloppy and unfinished I will find more reliable sources and attempt to cover as much information possible, long as the information is credible of course. I say we keep this. And see where it goes. I might add that if this article does get taken down, we should add the information to the Libyan Civil War (2014-present) as theres not much about American involvement covered in it. The purpose of American intervention in Libya was to include our operations since the beginning of the Second Libyan Civil War.
Comment Well, taking into account your comment, I think you agree, that if article stays, it should be renamed American Intervention in Libyan Civil War (2014–present) and cover more information than just list of airstrikes. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

yeah the article should definitely be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dg777714 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely needs a more specific name (especially as the US has intervened in Libya on multiple occasions), but the series of events it covers have attracted significant media coverage and discussion and are likely to be of lasting significance. Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it deserves the tag that it has. American air strikes in Libya 2016-- might be a better title. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 14 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. WP:SK#1; please open a merge discussion on the article talk page, or be bold and just do it yourself. ansh 666 02:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CrossCountry network map[edit]

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

The diagram is not particularly large compared to other diagrams and map images in similar articles and could easily be included in the main article CrossCountry with |collapse=1. Other than the diagram, all of the information is already included in the main article. Jc86035 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

merge with parent and better still, just make a more detailed map image. Mangoe (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main CrossCountry article - no reason for this to be a page on its own. Dunarc (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep #1 NPASR WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (~~"Merge"~~, changed per below) I don't understand User:Unscintillating's reference to a Speedy Keep argument, "no argument for deletion". Merging is a reasonable outcome of many AFDs. Is the point that the complaint should perhaps be opened as a Merger Proposal at the Talk page, instead? Perhaps it can be argued that obtaining many outside opinions as happens in an AFD is not needed for a mere question of splitting vs. merging article content, when a given article has gotten pretty long. I take their argument as Good Faith, but I am not sure about it, as a matter of policy/guideline for how we are to proceed.

About the merits of splitting vs. merging this specific topic, the current article is titled "CrossCountry network map" but the article is not written about the map. It states that it is about the company: "CrossCountry is a train operating company that has operated Great Britain’s Cross Country rail franchise since 11 November 2007." Some transportation maps are notable and even famous, such as the NYC subway map. An article about this map should describe the process by which it was created, give credit to designers, relate to graphical precedents, etc. It seems rather that this map is content appropriate to include in the article about the network. It then may be a question whether the article is too long and needs to be split. Offhand I don't see why this material, rather than other material in the article should be split out. It would seem natural to keep the network map because it is about the entire network, and to split out something else which is detail less essential to understanding the big picture. --Doncram (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is for discussions that need admin tools. WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT states that non-deletion discussion can be moved to the talk page by an uninvolved editor. AfD needs to focus on the problem of worthless articles.

If the community wants a central forum for content discussions, I suggest creating the forum AfE (Articles for Editing) or AfEP (Articles for Editing Policy). Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I agree that "Speedy Keep" seems justified. The nominator is not in fact advocating that the material be deleted from Wikipedia. Rather they and everyone else so far is recommending an alternative, merger. Speedy Keep applies when "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion or redirection—perhaps only proposing an alternative action such as moving or merging—and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected."

I think on the merger vs. split decision that more needs to be discussed out on the Talk page of the CrossCountry network article. If outside opinions are needed to break a deadlock, the correct process is to open an RFC, I think. I hope this is adequate guidance. --Doncram (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FYI, this AFD is ready to be closed by anyone. It clearly meets SK criteria, and does not need to be prolonged for any reason. --Doncram (talk) 17:56, 15 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) 01:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kunwar Viyogi Memorial Trust[edit]

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

I can find no evidence that this organization meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Available sources are of questionable reliability and a few that make passing reference to the Trust. - MrX 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - MrX 12:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Carl[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is an absence of quality sources. The sources used int he article are very poor.104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kiev anything that needs to be merged or transwikied can occur from the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mother of Rus' cities[edit]

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

Strikes me as a model WP:DICTDEF that should become a redirect to Kiev. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per nom and Transwiki to wiktionary(if it isn't already there) ^{[Username Needed]} 13:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to History of Kiev. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2023 February 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maryann Thompson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. None of the references that I could access provided the in-depth independent coverage that we expect of a notable subject of a biography. The references provided are to projects that Thompson's firm architected. The article purports to be about Thompson, not the firm she founded. The article is laden with promotional fluff and uncited claims. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Billhpike (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Have edited the article to reduce the level of puffery, but what remains still fails the general notability guideline, as most of the references are passing mentions, in press release style or about the firm and not the individual. It also also fails all of the specific notability guideline for architects:

(a) there is no evidence that Ms Thompson is widely cited by peers or successors;

(b) they are not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique,

(c) they are not the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series); and

(d) their work is not (a) a significant monument, (b) a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Euryalus' excellent analysis of this article. I did the same when dealing with this on copyright issues, and came to the same conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 16 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 and redirect to Wilkhahn. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ON chair[edit]

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

Question the notability of this article on a specific design of chair. Sources are a single mention in what appears to be a trade publication. Dolescum (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no claim to notability. It's literally just a chair. PriceDL (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Not a notable product, no sales claimed. The maker's page has info on this anyway so probably OK to redirect to Wilkhahn in this case as plausible search term. Mattg82 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Immad Akhund[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned page on a nn entrepreneur. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is a lot of self-promotion, interviews, and other WP:SPIP sources. Sourced to likewise unsuitable sources, some of which are routine notices about the subject's company, which has been deleted via PROD. Created by Special:Contributions/Yasnim with four total edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Themes[edit]

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

It doesn't look like a single one of the ten sources cited is independent of the subject. Two of the members of the band have articles of their own, but it isn't clear that they're independently notable (or even notable at all). KSFT ^(t|c) 20:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Vgrooves[edit]

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

The PROD was removed but my rationale is still entirely relevant. I can't say much different from my original statement: The first source applied here actually isn't half bad but that seems to be the only one; he certainly does not pass WP:GNG because the others, both in the article and in searches, are primary sources. The rest is within the context of musicians he produced but notability is not inherited. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Delete as per nom. Lacks coverage to meet WP:GNG and fails to meet notability standards. AuthorAuthor (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Croft Baker[edit]

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see why this article has been AfDed. The man received a knighthood and a CBE. He has an entry in Who's Who and an obituary in The Times, all of which were cited in the article when this nomination was made. Not only based on precedent, but also on guidelines (WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times."), this person is notable and the article should not be deleted. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Typing his name into Google lights up hits in the National Archives and the London Gazette. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noswall59. The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could nom expand on why subject supposedly "Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO"? Sam Sailor 18:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An obituary in The Times is the gold standard and there's plenty more material to be found, e.g. Davis, Morris (February 1962), "British Public Relations: A Political Case Study", The Journal of Politics, 24 (1): 50–71, doi:10.2307/2126737. Andrew D. (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Noswall59. Meets WP:ANYBIO(1) with a CBE. --Enos733 (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The others have explained why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLuke1980 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have always considered that a CBE or higher passes WP:ANYBIO #1. Baker had a CBE and a knighthood (which is higher). And an obit in a national newspaper just adds to his notability. Clear pass of notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the notability guidelines and tons of sources. -- Dane ^talk 19:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A person who fails NPOL can still pass some other inclusion standard for some other reason — for example, a writer who wins a Pulitzer Prize, but then tries to run for political office and loses, gets kept as a notable writer rather than deleted as a non-notable politician. A CBE clears ANYBIO, and a knighthood even more so — this could definitely do with some additional referencing, so by all means flag it for {{Refimprove}}, but not passing NPOL is irrelevant if he passes another SNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Monique Bingham[edit]

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

Promotion from a paid spammer created using a block evading sockpuppet. No substantial edits by others. Textbook G5 speedy deletion but declined. Keeping this spam empowers paid promotion and encourages the misuse of sockpuppets and erodes Wikipedias falling credibility. Stop rewarding the sockpuppets. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drop the "falling cred" and "prizes for socks" stick. Anyone would have declined that G5. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience the VAST majority of admins delete this sort of spam. I don't know why the declining editor chose to give "prizes for socks" in this case. The more advertising Wikipedia allows, the less credible it is. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article doesn't read like a promo, and the subject is, in fact, notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.200.32.38 (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD G5, WP:PAID, and WP:BMB. Large UPE sockfarm. The rest doesn't matter: the current practice when dealing with UPE farms is to delete their contributions. I think Mifter's decline was good (G5 is the most controversial criteria, and it is a good thing to have diversity in the admin corps in this topic), but unlike what L3X1 claims, saying that anyone would have declined this is false: there are many other admins who would have delete this via G5, and that's okay: admin discretion is important, and two admins can look at the same set of circumstances and reasonably arrive at different conclusions.
WP:BMB makes it clear: we don't care if the content is good or not if an editor has been banned. That is the reason G5 applies even after AfDs close as keep if we discover the creator was a sock after the close. The paid sock argument here is a strong one: this user both had no legal right to even hit the save button (WMF TOU violation) and they were also banned from doing so by local English Wikipedia policy. Deletion is the only option in this case. I would encourage any reviewing administrator to simply close this AfD as delete and not relist. No substantive arguments have been made for keeping it, and English Wikipedia policy clearly allows for deletion in these cases. If this has gone a week with no active editor arguing to keep, deleting on these grounds is uncontroversial and in line with policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 16 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. Additionally, withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 18:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dorel Vișan[edit]

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

This article fails with WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NFILM. The article has no reliable source and there is just an IMDB link, which is not fully reliable. This actor is non-notable actor. -- মাখামাখি Connect 04:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — মাখামাখি (talk}}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Regards, মাখামাখি (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Regards, মাখামাখি (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 January 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom has made no attempt at WP:BEFORE, and if they were to take just two minutes, they would have found lengthy articles such as [4], [5], [6], [7], etc, meeting WP:GNG. As a side to this, this person is a notable actor who has been in 50+ films, with several nominations/wins. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really? This article lists only 5 film articles, which is a weak consideration. And apart from IMDB profile, the article provides no references. So, I think you should add at least one reliable reference to prove the actor is notable. Remember that wikipedia keeps on deleting unsourced articles especially biography of a person must have one reference. Thank you. মাখামাখি (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. I've listed not one, but four sources, above. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: sources have been added, he is, quote "one of Romania's most popular actors" with a long career in both film and on stage, and we have a nice article at ro:Dorel Vișan from which we can expand. I suggest again nom withdraws the nomination, by following WP:WDAFD and adds * {{Withdraw}} <Your brief explanation.> ~~~~ immediately below the nomination statement. Sam Sailor 12:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep -Lugnuts have indeed added four sources. This is WP:GNG. Period.BabbaQ (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As Lugnuts has added several reliable sources and the actor is prolific, so I have decided to keep his article. The discussion should be closed here. মাখামাখি (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruel Sotiriou[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, thus failing WP:NFOOTY. Deprodded by creator who mistakenly thought WP:FOOTYN#Player notability was still applicable. Number 5 7 10:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. LTFC 95 (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 18:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as the creator of this article who, as Number 57 correctly points out, read an outdated list of notability criteria which should be archived, I'll make a token gesture to keep. Why a player who has participated in an FA Cup match between two fully professional clubs should be disqualified because the league he plays in contains some non-professional clubs, I fail to see. I accept that this is "the rule" but the rule is illogical. I could go on, but there seems little point. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:NFOOTBALL. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 14:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:Basic at this time Atlantic306 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to pass WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 19:36, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 14 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) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company[edit]

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

Oh god just look at the sources - company website, company website, press release, oh company website. Where's the WP:ORGIND, the WP:CORPDEPTH - fails WP:NCORP. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you wish, WP:AUD. I actually missed over Philippine Prudential Life: Great at 48 source, but I can't even verify that the book exists or is reliable..or barely even the publisher Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's undisclosed use of at least one ref written by the article editor (now marked, and listed at WP:COIN). As such, I have no confidence in the ability to discern what source is what due to lack of disclosure and improper editing. Instead of volunteers investing time, this is really an example of WP:BOGOF where I refuse to spend time investigating and evaluating hidden COIs, leaving only WP:TNT for this promotion. Widefox; talk 15:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Widefox and the nominator. Unfixable. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, as most of it's sourcing can be traced to the company itself or to passing mentions in press releases. Information exists about the size and scope of the company, by nothing indicates (to me) the encyclopedia value of the present article. In addition, Widefox's point that the article is practically unsalvageable is well made given Noraft's dubious decision to cite himself as a source, which indicates a WP:ORGIND issue.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and above. References fail WP:NCORP, topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability provided or found. (The present article text is also missing significant change - "Insurance Commission places Philippine Prudential under conservatorship", Dec 2016, and subsequent stay order - which would need to be edited into the article were it to be retained.) AllyD (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Dane ^talk 19:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created promotionally and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Note that most of these !voters including me came from the case at WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Stattelman[edit]

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

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

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

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

Does not appear to be a notable professor or author. At least some of his books appear to be self-published, and in any case haven't appeared to have been covered in reliable sources. As for his professorship, it doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF due to a lack of peer-reviewed published material. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For clarity, am I correct in assuming only academic credibility is given to those from Major institutions of higher learning (non-technical schools) based on ones access to research funding or grants? Am I also correct in getting the impression that self-published content is of less value than those of a major publishing house? This appears to run counter to collaborative and varied perspective nature this very platform. A patent for expanding the capacity of an optical disc by increasing the surface area of optical dics is not of note? 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
No, academic credibility does not depend upon being located at a major institution, although having a named chair or distinguished professorship at such an institution is one way to meet our standards for being a notable academic. Nor do we care about access to research funding. Self-published content does not establish notability, because we have no way of evaluating whether it has gone through any quality-control process. XOR'easter (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, publications by the subject do not establish academic notability, at least not by themselves. It is the publications by others citing the subject's work that we look at. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. People in continuous service to their countries, technology and education should be known about. 11:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for self promotion. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This persons Optical disc capacity expansion should be considered a contribution and not self promotion 11:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.82.237 (talk) — 96.32.82.237 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep. Authors of copy written books available for mass distribution on trusted platforms should be available for research by a source such as wikipedia. As long as they are only claiming authorship. 11:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
Keep. The article seems to discuss a person in a fact based manner and not promotional. 11:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.88.208.155 (talk)
Keep. The professor ratings site is not affiliated with the school or the professor, the patent filing can be verified on the USPTO site. 01:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs) — Mstatt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment to Mstatt: You are only allowed to make one !vote per AfD. That is, if you've already !voted "Keep"/"Delete"/"Merge"/etc., you cannot make another !vote without striking out your original. Also note that Wikipedia deletion discussion outcomes are determined by consensus, and not necessarily numerical votes. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Understood, thank you.12:50, 8 January 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mstatt (talk • contribs)
Delete. Google scholar search finds only one uncited patent by him, so there's no chance of notability through WP:PROF, which generally requires multiple heavily-cited publications. And as the author of three self-published books, one of which has the spammiest title I can ever remember seeing, he doesn't appear to pass WP:AUTHOR. No other form of notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing even real assertions of notability, let alone evidence thereof. --Calton | Talk 03:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage of this individual in reliable secondary sources, or any sources apart from social media. I notice that User Mstatt has a very similar name to the subject of the article, and presumably a conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to above, article is almost all OR. Agricola44 (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I left a message on the author's talk page four days ago, explaining that if the article is to avoid deletion, then all content must be verifiable and that notability (in the Wikipedia sense) must be established. I explained that this would need good quality references for the factual material in the page and suggested WP:GNG as a straightforward criterion to aim to satisfy. Since then, the author has neither replied to my message nor made any changes to the article. — Hebrides (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Update – the author has since added a photograph and a reference to a self-published book. Neither of these addresses the fundamental lack of evidence of notability and verifiability. — Hebrides (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:46, 12 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 GFriend. ansh 666 02:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of GFriend concerts and showcases[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR, one concert doesnt need a separated page, while those so-called "fan meetings" easily fails WP:GNG and should not be listed anywhere. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on GFriend - I do not think that they are well-known enough group for a list of their tours and concerts to merit its own article. Vorbee (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Too little information for its own article. Abdotorg (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GFriend, doesn't need a separate page. --ChoHyeri (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know, The concert will be held as an Asia Tour. No need to merge the article. And to the person called GFriend is not a big enough group to own a separate tour article, thats an offence. You are being a group slur. BIlguun cat (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2018 (China Standard Time)

No, they are not big enough to have an own article, one tour with two concerts doesnt needs an own page. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are big enough to have an own article, just like Twice (band). Also, every group were small then rose to become a big group. Don't be silly. BIlguun cat (talk)

Yes, I think it is better to leave it. Like Bilguun cat stated above, Twice's list of concert tours page, List of Twice concert tours started quite small too, but increase as the schedule came in. Plus, it is easier for people to search for GFriend's concerts and showcase activities. I hope you guys agree to let the page stay. It will grow more for sure. Thanks. - Anonymous user

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a reason, feel free to AfD Twice page as well. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:21, 14 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) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revcontent[edit]

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

No real coverage. Everything is what the company says about itself-very puffy pieces-which are excluded under WP:ORGIND/WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP Galobtter. (pingó mió) 10:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (was ~~Weak~~ delete) The Forbes article would be a good start for WP:N except it's mainly an interview (so doesn't count as independent). Can't see how this passes WP:CORPDEPTH currently. Weak, as according to that article it sounds like a major player. Ping me if sources turn up, and I'll change to weak keep. Widefox; talk 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The forbes source is forbes contributor, meaning no editorial review - basically just curated blogging. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've marked the source as non-RS. Widefox; talk 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:CORPDEPTH. Listings in generic funding announcements etc. do not qualify, nor 1 of large N listings like "Top 50 U.S. Digital Media Properties for <month><year>". Regarding Galobtter's comment, he is correct. This is documented at RSN if you look for forbes.com/sites, e.g. here and here and here. Forbes is listed at WP:Potentially unreliable sources for this reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP, as the majority of the article is sourced to press releases or web articles that mention the subject in passing as part of a list of similar companies.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Galobtter. Note that most of these !voters (including me) came from the related case on WP:COIN. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:49, 15 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) 01:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Hamza[edit]

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

Notable only for one minor news event several years ago. No evidence of further notable acts. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:39, 13 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) 01:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati (Roman Academy)[edit]

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

I tried to expand the article, but I didn't find any information, beside that it was found by Marchesa Isabella Aldobrandini Pallavicino. The article mostly talks about Marchesa and not the academy itself. If there is no any other information available either in Italian or English, I don't think the article should stay. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 10:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Taiwanese animation. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Taiwanese animation studios[edit]

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

Forty-six entries, of which 44 are redlinks. I submit it is unlikely that the majority, or even a sizable percentage, of these will have an article any time soon; and in any case, the list currently runs counter to WP:CSC (no creation/"to-do" lists). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. 2 blue links out of 44 with no references of any sort (other than official website WP:NOTLINKFARM) does not make a suitable list. Ajf773 (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have since nominated an article linked from this one for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese animations — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Taiwanese animation (with the history preserved under the redirect) in lieu of deletion. Preserving the history is useful so that editors can do a selective merge to Taiwanese animation of any material that can be sourced.
A concern about this list is that it is unclear which of the animation studios are notable and which are not since all but two are red links. And all of the entries are unsourced. If each entry could be sourced with reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the studio, that would establish the studio is notable, and in my view would be sufficient to undo the redirect and restore the list.
Cunard (talk) 08:51, 15 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Highway 329 (India)[edit]

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

A redirect to List of National Highways in India by highway number will be more appropriate as the only source provided is a blog which isn't a reliable source. ─ 1997 kB 09:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per usual outcomes and WP:GEOROAD, national and state highways are deemed notable. Ajf773 (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substituted the blog with better sources. MT Train^Discuss 12:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Songali[edit]

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

Appears not to satisfy WP:NFILM. No independent sources given and I can't find any (admittedly finding Indian sources may be difficult in my search bubble). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything on the web. Apparently a very regional non-notable film. Hagennos (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Speedy delete. Speedily deleted, G5. (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Highlife Musicians from Edo State[edit]

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

Unnecessary state level content fork of the national level list found at List of Nigerian highlife musicians. Delete per WP:DEL5. Sam Sailor 08:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 08:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as a content fork to List of Nigerian highlife musicians but also for the fact only two of the list entries currently has an article, which appear on the aformentioned list anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as g5 per the obvious. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:40, 11 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 for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arvind Shaligram[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows notability. All references are primary sources. Hagennos (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record not enough for WP:PROF#C1 and no other notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also, sources are all web pages. Agricola44 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not cited enough to meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:47, 14 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) 08:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard 200 top 10 albums in 2013[edit]

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

Looking at these lists, they're really full of indiscriminate info, including when the album was released, when it peaked on the chart (even if it was not in the year of that specific list), total weeks spent in the top 10 (again regardless of year it did so), and the date it entered and left the actual chart (the entire chart, not just the top 10). With that said, even if all the extraneous info is cleaned up and parsed out, what does it actually mean to have a top ten album on the Billboard 200? Probably just as much as it to have an album reach the top 100 of the chart. Beyoned the primary source of Billboard magazine itself, there's really no coverage of either as an achievement. Plus there is so much turnover, many albums make a high debut and will fall rapidly in the weeks afterwards. Joel Whitburn's books covers entire chart placement and if anything will just have a summary of all numbers ones later in his books (similar to what Wikipedia's lists of number ones show). Reaching number one can be seen as an achievement in and of itself (even in a time when album sales are not near the numbers they used to reach) and those lists already exist (see List of Billboard 200 number-one albums of 1999, for example). Lists of #2s have been deleted for other charts (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot 100 number-two singles of 2015, so why have a 2-10 list? And if top 10 is ok, why not top 20? Putting these together is just someone going through Billboard's chart archives without finding any coverage in any independent sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination, WP:NOT. Becoming more active in the various chart articles like this in the last year, I've often wondered the same thing about these articles, and had considered starting the same sort of discussion about them. List of chart toppers? That's an accomplishment that largely gets reported on in reliable sources, both in a weekly and yearly retrospective basis. But top 10 stuff like this? Yeah, sometimes, but usually more in passing. This all seems like a violation of NOT - excessive stat-tracking not tracked elsewhere on a whole like this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Masktv[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable defunct website, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or sng for websites Atlantic306 (talk) 18:21, 12 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) 08:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek-e-Khatme Nabuwwat[edit]

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

We already have many of these and we don't know how many of these actually exists. Nothing significant in coverage, maybe a local organization. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a registered political party. no in-depth coverage in RS. most of the recent press coverage make it fall under WP:SINGLEEVENT. --Saqib (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Latif Khalid Cheema[edit]

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

Started by user with COI. He hasn't done anything significant yet. Nothing significant in sources. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:NSCHOLAR. Störm (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no in depth coverage in RS and not an elected politician therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. --Saqib (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG. sami ^talk 00:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am highly in favor of keeping articles that just slide through GNG, this does not. DELETE! Elektricity (talk) 10:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Kaye Tardif[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is an autobiography started by an IP that geolocates to the subject's home town and largely written by the subject's own account, user:Cherylktardif. The book for which she is claimed to be best known, is self-published through a vanity press. She now publsihes via Imajin Books, which is her own firm. I looked through all 11 pages of Google hits for Cheryl K Tardif and found no usable sources. Blogs, author bios on sales sites, but no coverage in the literary press. Some of these describe her as "award-winning" but her website only describes her as having been nominated for the Lieutenant Governor of Alberta Arts Award (which she did not win). The quotes on her website come from publications like Real Estate Weekly.

In short, then, this is an autobiography of a self-published author who appears to have attracted no serious commentary from any of the usual sources. It was kept in 2006 after successful appeals to upcoming independent publishing and movie deals: over a decade later these have not happened. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is fairly prolific, according to WorldCat, but holdings of all her books, save one, are single or very low double digits. Whale Song shows 175, but this is still very low for fiction (which most public libraries preferentially stock). Taken with the poor sourcing, it seems this one does not pass muster. Agricola44 (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our notability and sourcing standards have been tightened up considerably since 2006 — back then, we didn't have anywhere near as clear a set of rules for distinguishing a reliable source from an unreliable one as we do now, but rather permitted more or less any source at all that verified the content, inclusive of the author's own self-published website, to support notability. (To be fair, that was before people started trying the "I'm notable because I'm on Facebook!" thing that finally forced us to get stricter about what's a notability-supporting source and what isn't. Which isn't to say people weren't already trying to game the system in other ways, but we hadn't built up the quality control standards to effectively combat them yet. But I digress.) But under WP:AUTHOR mk. 2018, she has no notability claim or reliable source coverage strong enough to still be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet notability. I encourage the subject, should she see this AFD, to beware of self-written articles, lest detractors come on and begin to vandalize. It becomes easy for unknown people to become targets of vandalism as well. Bastique ^{☎ call me!} 18:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has been around a LONG time, but in all that time, nothing has changed the concerns at the original AFD. A cursory google search turns up this Wikipedia article and nothing else except webpages and blogs written by the author, plus a smattering of websites selling her books. No one of note has written anything about her life story in reliable sources, and what's cited in the article is NOT really enough to sustain an article here. --Jayron 32 20:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not that it matters at this point, but the fact that the article creator was an IP that geolocates to Vancouver means... they're one of the two million poeple who live there?104.163.153.162 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant in conjunction with the fact that the article ws then largely written by an account clearly identified as the subject. There's no real evidence of anyone other than the subject being interested in editing this. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not relevant at all unless you like conspiracy theories. Millions of people live there.104.163.153.162 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a conspiracy. It's just one person, Cheryl Kaye Tardif, who sometimes edits logged out. There can't be a conspiracy with only one person! --Jayron 32 19:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you outing an editor?104.163.150.32 (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance from this AFD discussion aside (because it's not relevant), running a geolocation on an IP address does not constitute outing. As you pointed out, a simple location look-up doesn't assert anything connected to one person's identity outside the IP address itself (and even that IP address could be shared). Millions of people could live in the area, so fear not :-). ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, the relevance is clear to us admins. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that it is not actually her sister, lover, husband, boyfriend, colleague, employee, boss, neighbour, tenant, classmate, friend, customer, client or enemy? You don't.104.163.150.32 (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say that like it matters for the purpose of deleting this article. It doesn't really. Even if it were, this article still has no place at Wikipedia. --Jayron 32 11:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply pointing out that you have zero idea who is at the other end of an IP address. And further, since you're claiming above that the IP is her, you should read WP:OUTING. The point here is that it's very bad practice to associate real live people with IP addresses or accounts when you really have no idea if they actually are that person. 104.163.150.32 (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've said the same thing three times. You could say it a fourth time, and it still has no bearing on whether or not we should delete the article. I'm at a loss why you keep repeating it in the context of this discussion. I will concede you are correct. It doesn't make any difference to the matter at hand, so you can stop repeating yourself. Once was enough (probably more than enough), at this point your just being repetitive. --Jayron 32 15:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BROTHER. Not our first rodeo. Guy (Help!) 16:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional guidebooks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No clear inclusion criteria, no sources. Last AFD in 2008 was "keep but cleanup", but that doesn't seem to have been done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no indication of WP:LISTN, and the second section is off-topic (about real guidebooks to fictional universes). Looks like WP:FANCRUFT. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No policy-compliant deletion rationale articulated by nominator: Inclusion criteria are easy to create, and AfD is not for cleanup no matter the interval between AfDs. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:OR listcruft. There are not even enough articles on fictional guidebooks to have their own category. At most it would merit an "in fiction" section at guide book._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Almost completely unsourced listcruft. It seems that there's been no attempt to fix the problems since the last AfD, which must now be taken as evidence that the problems can't be fixed. A merge is not appropriate for two reasons- a) we don't merge unsourced content. And b) all that would be mergable would be the name of the guidebook into the work of fiction it's from, and for guidebooks notable within their universe they will already be mentioned. So a merge would have nothing to do. Reyk _YO! 07:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also add that many, if not most, of the entries are WP:OR. Calling an encyclopedia, or an index of monsters, or the religious tome of the Ferengi a guidebook seems like a subjective determination to me. Reyk _YO! 07:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Granville Bates[edit]

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

The article lacks any reliable sources. IMDb is enough to demonstrate someone existed, not that they were notable. A search on google showed a collection of primary and non-reliable sources, such as Find a Grave, but nothing that rose to the level of substantial mention in a secondary source. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was in over 90 films during pre-internet era, and we may presume that sources exist. From the nice photo in the article he seems vaguely familiar and if I saw him on the street i'd be "Don't I know you from somewhere", but character actors get that all the time. --Doncram (talk) 03:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes sourcing is a problem. (I started this article, so it's my fault.) If we agree that Granville Bates actually existed, the core issue is notability. In my opinion he meets that bar with a 35-year career and "significant roles in multiple notable films" per WP:ENT. --Lockley (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Film and stage actor whose career spanned over 40 years ([8]). Many major roles, as indicated in sources from the time of his films. --Michig (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless substantive sources are identified. The link above only says that the subject had a long career, not an assessment of it or its impact. Seeing some actual sources would be helpful. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Keep. I've added several New York Times movie reviews that singled him out for praise. Presumably there are more in other publications. Plus he appeared in a bunch of Broadway plays.[9] Clarityfiend (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He got an obituary in the July 10, 1940 Cincinnati Enquirer, Harrisburg Telegraph and various other papers, though I can't see much without a subscription, and what looks like another one in the July 11 Pittsburgh Press. The Los Angeles Times wrote about his performance in My Favorite Wife on May 3, 1940, the Palladium-Item has his name in big bold font on November 4, 1939, etc. Somebody with an active newspapers.com subscription should clip/cite these things. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Cyber Girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Most of the coverage is tabloid. Nothing significant else. Fails WP:GNG with WP:RS. Störm (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable subscription service, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Does not meet WP:LISTN and significant RS coverage not found. WP:LISTCRUFT and trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG, best left to Playboy Wiki Atlantic306 (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy Cyber Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Nothing significant in sources. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable subscription service, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG, best left to Playboy wiki Atlantic306 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl II[edit]

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

No out-of-universe notability. Sources are the books themselves, no secondary sourcing in sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not having much of an idea about how articles on fictional characters are usually handled, I quickly found at least two published studies that focus on this one ^[1]^[2] (as well as two theses ^[3]^[4] which might not count for much). Haven't looked for non-scholarly stuff, but I would be surprised if there wasn't plenty of outside-universe coverage. I'll leave that to people who have actually read the books :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chanda, Sagnika (2016). "The Posthuman Child as a Genderless Ideal". Sanglap: Journal of Literary and Cultural Inquiry. 3 (1): 28–43.
^ Nilsen, Alleen Pace; Nilsen, Don LF (2009). "Artemis Fowl, An Irish Rogue". First Opinions, Second Reactions. 1 (3): 4.
^ Vanhala, P. (2015). Eco-consciousness and environmental ethics in Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl (PDF) (MSc). University of Tampere.
^ Owens, B. J. (2013). Disagreeable, Villainous, and Wimpy: The Child as Antihero in Burnett, Colfer, and Kinney (Honours). University of Southern Mississippi.

Keep per sources found. Note that notability is binary; there is no such thing as in-universe notability, since notability is established through RS'es... which the above editor appears to have done. Jclemens (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Out-of-universe references are a tough bar for any fictional character to cross (see e.g. Ron Weasley, Captain Nemo, Lemuel Gulliver or Crowley (Supernatural)), and I definitely wouldn't want the details in this page to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely or moved to the Artemis Fowl article. I think that's argument enough to keep the page, but definitely the citations found by Elmidae support the notion that people have discussed Fowl as a character separate from his role in the novels. I hope someone more qualified in literary studies can add the citations to the article, but if not, feel free to ping me and I'll give it a shot :). Gaurav (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly the argument about "no out of universe notability" has been shattered. The Characterization section might need a lot of pruning because it seems very fancrufty, but the article seems to pass GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:12, 12 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) 07:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dajjal the Slayer and His Followers[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 06:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Afterimage (shader effect)[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2007. Dicdef. Coin945 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Falls under WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I don't think there's much to be said about the article subject beyond explaining what it is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ansh 666 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

War in the Pacific (video game)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - strategic wargames are not that widely popular or covered in media as shooter-like games but if you ask someone of the wargamer community about this game you'll get something like an epic monster wargame. AFAIR it's the only strategic wargame covering air/land/sea actions in the pacific 1941-45. --Denniss (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GameRankings list a Review by Computer Gaming World, as well as mentions on GameSpot, as well as a review here by Bovine Conspiracy. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mobygames also lists only the CGW and Bovine Conspiracy reviews, and Metacritic lists no reviews at all, which makes me suspect those two are the only reviews of the game out there from notable/reliable publications. I tried Goodsearch but came up with only primary sources, bulletin boards, and the occasional Youtube video. Denniss's rationale is little more than WP:ILIKEIT, and being known among the hardcore fanbase of the genre is not a mark of distinction; if I wanted to know more about a particular strategic wargame, I would certainly hope at least one member of the community would be able to tell me about it, however obscure it is.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- too obscure to meet WP:NGAME; the present review are insufficient to meet WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 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) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Kart[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG. Coin945 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsure if this is helpful, as arcade machines aren't my area, but Arcade-Museum, National Arcade Hire, and Arcade-Game-Sales have some info on the box. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game Boy Advance: WormCam[edit]

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

No independent notability. Coin945 (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

CommentIGN Reviewed the peripheral, as did Nintendo World Report. Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article clearly meets the notability guideline. There's at least a few really reliable sources per WP:VG/RS that are reliable (IGN: [10] and Nintendo World Report: [11]). The N-Sider article ([12]) is considered to be unreliable, but I imagine with an even slightly more thorough search than the one I did, you'll be able to find probably a little bit more. But even with just the two, I think this is definitely a keep !vote. Nomader (talk) 16:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take Command (video game)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Despite appearances, this is actually a video game series! Take Command: 2nd has a lot of reviews, and is arguably notable on it's own, especially with the GameSpot Review. Does need some work to find those references though. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The DuchAz[edit]

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

Non notable "musician" or DJ. The only thing she seems to be famous for is calling herself black on Twitter which generated some news - which makes this a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Not all of the sources are reliable either Gbawden (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Choi (professor)[edit]

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

no evidence of meeting WP:PROF -- he's an entrepreneur, not an academic. Promotional for his non-notable activities in that sphere. References are press releases, self-serving interviews, and , mostly, notices. Written by now blocked undeclared paid editor.,tho they had not yet been detected when the article was written--and it's time we made the speedy criterion for that retroactive. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Billhpike (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a paper written as a fellow is not enough to show major impact to pass academic notability one, and nothing else even comes remotely close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:56, 15 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) 07:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyro 2[edit]

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

No Mobygames reviews. That's a pretty good indication. Searched elsewhere and appears to fail WP:GNG Coin945 (talk) 09:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:19, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Fauss[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria in WP:NMUSIC. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:07, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

David Huckabee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

David Huckabee only made minor contributions to his fathers political campaigns and is otherwise not notable. The current article focuses on minor misconduct, some of which was reported to take place while the subject was a juvenile. Billhpike (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough of a political role to be notable on his own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 09:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Billhpike (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --This article serves a great example of why the hierarchy of Wikipedia policies needs to have common sense applied. One group will point to GNG and say "lots of press, notable." Another group will say "notability is not inherited;" I am in the second group. The subject would not have any press coverage save for his family name. It's the same discussion as for Jack Schlossberg, but even more obvious. Rhadow (talk) 10:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BizWest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/BizWest Media

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

Local business newspaper with zero evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 19:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a directory-like listing for a nn business website / publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well an Admin with a hate on for me gutted it. I consider all long running print publications notable but I don't really care about this page. Legacypac (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has two solid/reliable sources. It is a bona fide business publication that appears to have good quality. Given the quality of the online publication, it will only grow in importance. I removed the dead links from the article.Knox490 (talk) 05:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cited sources are not WP:RELIABLE as they do not have bylines. Unable to find reliable coverage in my own search. ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh?! How does not having a byline make a story in The Denver Post or Fort Collins Coloradoan not reliable? WP:NEWSORG says news reporting from well-established newspapers such as these is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like WP:ROUTINE coverage possibly primarily based on a press release. If no one at the paper has put their name on the article, it is not clear it has received editorial control. I don't assume everything put out by a reliable source has the same level of reliability. Presence of a byline is one thing I look at. ~Kvng (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good sources in the article. I see no particular reason why this article should be deleted. gidonb (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Martin (anthropologist)[edit]

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

No notability asserted Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An article for an academic that states the person is a professor and describes publications IS making a statement of notability, so the nomination is incorrect. The question is whether that notability is adequate. Once reviews of her books had been added the nominator should have done some checking before AfD. Her Guggenhim Fellowship is one indicator of notability. The high citation rates for her books is another. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@StarryGrandma: Are there any reliable sources about her? I found a lot of her works, but almost nothing about her herself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer. Articles about professors are covered by WP:PROF which looks at how much impact their work has, and their positions and awards. see the criteria used. We don't expect to see the kinds of biographical coverage that many public figures have. StarryGrandma (talk) 07:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A GS search shows several publications cited more than 100 times - which should pass WP:PROF#C1 (a guideline independent of WP:GNG). Also held a named chair at Johns Hopkins (WP:PROF#C5). WorldCat is helpful as well, as there are multiple books held in several hundred libraries. It looks like she passes WP:AUTHOR on the basis of book reviews of The Woman in the Body and Bipolar Expeditions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep because no valid argument for deletion has been advanced. The article doesn't have to "assert" notability. It's up to the nominator to assess the subject's notability, including checking against relevant SNGs, before presenting an argument for deletion. In this case that doesn't seem to have happened, as per EricEnfermero the subject clearly passes WP:PROF and probably WP:AUTHOR. – Joe (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per above. I contested the original prod and added critical reviews of her book, establishing WP:NPROF notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on procedural grounds as no valid deletion rationale has been advanced (and it's pretty clear that WP:PROF is met anyway). XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several works cited >1K conclusively satisfies PROF c1. Agricola44 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Hugh Gillis[edit]

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

No notability asserted, no sourcing found Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability is clearly asserted here. The first Google Books hit for ["john hugh gillis" canada] is the book The Amazing Foot Race of 1921: Halifax to Vancouver in 134 Days, which confirms Gillis as the first man to walk across Canada. A regular Google search also found the book Transcontinental Pedestrians: The First Walk Across Canada from Sea to Sea, which also confirms the same, this article, and his entry in the British Columbia Sports Hall of Fame ([13]). --Michig (talk) 09:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Biography in the BC Sports Hall of Fame, a book about him -- what else do you need? Υπογράφω (talk)
Speedy Keep Bad nomination, since the sourcing was actually in the article, but improperly placed inline with the text. In addition to the above reasons given by other editors for 'keep', see the many converted sources that are now inline.104.163.153.162 (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Meissner[edit]

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

Minimal notability at best, no sourcing found. Prod declined without comment Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prod was declined with comment: "Contest; clearly notable". Winner of the 2008 Sidney Powers Memorial Award as stated in the article, with reference to his obituary by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Has highly cited publications, appears to have been the first to suggest natural gas could be recovered from solid rock. StarryGrandma (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I declined the prod because he clearly meets WP:NPROF criteria 1 and 2, and possibly 3, 6, and 7 as well. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The article clearly documents academic notability for the subject, as described above, and has 12 references listed. The nomination appears to be motivated solely by the fact that the references are not inline. AfD is not for cleanup. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep The subject evidently meets WP:PROF. The article needs cleanup (I noticed some repeated text, for example), but that's not what AfD is for. XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, also per NPROF. In addition to the Sidney Powers Memorial Award, criterion 3 is fulfilled with fellowship to the Geological Society of America. Rhinopias (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Second Life. Content can be merged from history. ansh 666 02:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Second Life[edit]

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

Not notable, no out-of-universe notability, sources are all unreliable Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems like a case of WP:TNT regardless of whether it's independently notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a chance of Notoriety outside of Second Life. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the content that appears to have RS attached to them (notably, that's citation 16--why the claim of "all unreliable"?), if it's not already in Second Life (it does not appear to be). --Izno (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to second life. Note that if we're merging per WP:ATD-M, we can, and often should, bring over interesting and useful non-RS. I've seen erroneous assertions that non-RS cannot be merged on a number of recent occasions, which is troubling and incorrect. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Djaka Taroeb[edit]

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

this one is a beaut Chetsford (talk) 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - asserts its own non-notability, and I couldn't find anything that would contradict it. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources, no evidence that this has cult status. Fails WP:GNG. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if it is legitimately cited as one of the first fantasy films, or whatever claim to fame there is, then sources should be easy to find. I did not come up with anything useful. I can't establish notability and the author certainty did not. Links to the movie on youtube (potentially illegally, I did not check) are not sufficient. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:24, 10 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 S2. ansh 666 02:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

S-2[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any references to establish that this is a notable subject, or even that it exists. - MrX 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See linking page Cucurbitacin E#Cytotoxicity. Or Google, good first hit. And apparently you did not check the history either. I must say I am annoyed, you cannot have looked very much. Tomdo08 (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). If you can find some actual sources and add them to the article, it may be kept. (I don't know what " Or Google, good first hit." means).- MrX 03:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The section I linked lists S-2, the whole section text is covered by a source. When searching in Google with the definition, the first result links to Cellosaurus, a database of cell lines. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I restored S-2 as redirect (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-2&oldid=777974191), cell line page should be S-2 (cell line). This discussion should be closed. A deletion discussion was wrong in any case. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My restore apparently got reverted by User:MrX. Tomdo08 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The state of affairs now is completely silly:

The deletion discussion does not make any sense.
The tagging as hoax does not make any sense.
The state of the page should be the one from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=S-2&oldid=777974191

Tomdo08 (talk) 04:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:AFD so that you understand this process, and let other editors comment on the merits of the deletion. We work by WP:CONSENSUS.- MrX 04:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to redirect, article is an unsourced, one-sentence WP:DICDEF. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restor legitimate redirect to S2 as it has been there for 12 years undisturbed. And this is unnecessary AfD as the right thing to do is to revert the redirect not start unnecessary process. The first mistake is by Tomdo08 for converting useful redirect to unsourced and likely non notable stub. But they corrected their mistake by restoring the original redirect. What follows of insisting AfD must be done is dead unnecessary. AfD should not be as a dispute resolution venue, apart from the fact the original action has been undone in good faith since.–Ammarpad (talk) 10:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is legitimate concern that there is no such thing as an s-2 ovarian cancer cell line. If there is, someone could simply post a link. According to the Cellosaurus website referenced by Tomdo08 above, S-2 (capital 'S') is a cell line found in small cell lung carcinoma. I have no objection to redirecting it to the correct article/section, or back to S2, although I think the latter is less optimal. By the way, once an AfD is started, you can't just remove the template from the article and expect it to go away.- MrX 16:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Majic[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Other than their archived website linked on the page, I had to do some digging just before I found anything else to verify their existence. Bneu2013 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 03:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roohollah Zam[edit]

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

no significance coverage in RS. fails WP:GNG. Saqib (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of attention that Roohallah Zam and his channels AmadNews and Sedaie Mordam have received during the protests. more than justify his having a page in Wikipedia.Postermon1 17:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC+1)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are out there (on the Farsi wiki) but personally I am way too lazy to write an article out of them. If someone can help it might work. Karl.i.biased (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also added a few more sources plus some very basic info to the article. Karl.i.biased (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I read the article in Persian and it turned out that the person was an Iranian journalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamIRAQI (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Roohollah Zam's Telegram channels have been posting slogans for protestors to chant as well as tactics to be used such as blocking roads with cars. He's definately playing a key role in the protests but all of those are Telegram posts and so not serious sources to be used in an article. But the point is he's giving tactical and messaging direction to a fairly large audience (I think his old channel had over 1 million followers) and should be included in Wikipedia's coverage Postermon1 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC+1)
If you go to the images on this page you will see screenshots of posts made on one of Roohollah Zam's Telegram channels instructing protesters on how to block roads as well as providing instructions on what slogans to chant. https://twitter.com/ali_cgn Postermon1 06:42, 1 January 2018
Keep. Judging by its web traffic, Amadnews.org is a prominent news website and he is editor in chief of it. [14] Prominent journalist who played a high profile role in the Iranian protests of December 2017 too.[15]desmay (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly does not satisfy WP:PROF in terms of notable achievements/coverage. She passed away. Page probably created as a memorial by a family member or a student who liked her.desmay (talk)

I assume your web browser glitched and you typed this in the wrong field, considering your reply above and the fact that you are describing someone who is not the person in question Karl.i.biased (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Notable figure in current events. I'd say more evidence about notability will come to light as events move on. I think the page should stay, let people improve it. Once this dies down, then maybe consider deletion again if necessary. Weak Keep ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the RFR and Daily Mail articles suggest that he's notable, although I'd like to see more than a handful of sources. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination has essentially been withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presidium of the Bundesrat[edit]

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

Article already exists at Bundesrat of Germany and President of the German Bundesrat. No references. Toreightyone (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Toreightyone. This is an article about the Presidium, and not the President. There's no mention of the Presidium in either of the articles you mention. The Presidium is considered amongst the top constitutionally recognized bodies in the said government, and consists of the President and top three deputies, who represent the Bundesrat of Germany. The article needs to be improved, but many reliable sources exist discussing the topic significantly, and allow the threshold of notability to be met. I have re-worded the article, added relevant sources, for your perusal. Would you take a look when possible and tell me if it works for you? Thanks, Lourdes 03:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per [16] Presidium is a body within Bundesrat, so I think this has to be Keep. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are now three references in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the recent expansion, I'd say the article now makes sense and stands out as a separate topic. Thanks, Toreightyone (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good-faith article expansion has now expanded this article out, and any AfD concerns have now been addressed. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott A. Lewis[edit]

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

Non-notable local figure lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NPOL, etc. reddogsix (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I looked at the article, and I don't know why this is at AfD. There are multiple sources in which the title of the article gives direct attention to the topic, there is a sixty-five acre park named after the topic, and the title of one of the sources is that there is a road named after the topic. This information shows that the media and representatives of the public have given attention to the topic that has been in-depth significant and will be enduring. GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- As per nom, doesn't meet WP:NBIO. And having a park named after you does not establish notability (and roads even less so). In the town I grew up in these were plenty of parks named after deceased residents, none of which would even come close to passing GNG. Sometimes the park would be named after the guy who built the development next to it and if I recall correctly they even named a park after a popular elementary school janitor.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Which sources? The localized everyday ones announcing his retirement? The ones that passively mention his name in a list? The ones that arguably discuss the park more in-depth than the actual individual? Notability is not inherited to a non-notable park and is not established by these announcements, ones we would expect in every single newspaper.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- being head of a sheriff's department does not create a presumption of notability; sourcing is local and routine. Fails WP:ANYBIO / WP:SIGCOV. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment of SIGCOV is not guideline based. Unscintillating (talk) 08:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sheriffs of all counties in the United States always get localized coverage, but all sheriffs of all counties in the United States are not all automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles. At this level of significance, the key to making an article keepable is not just "local coverage exists", because it never, ever doesn't: the key is to state and properly source a credible reason why his notability extends beyond just one county. But nothing here demonstrates that at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What guideline or essay states "the key is to state and properly source a credible reason why his notability extends beyond just one county"? Unscintillating (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained to you many times, every sheriff who exists at all can always be sourced to a few pieces of purely run of the mill local coverage, but Wikipedia does not (and nor should we) accept that every sheriff who exists at all is automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia article. So the distinction between a sheriff who is notable enough and a sheriff who is not isn't determined by the mere existence of a few pieces of local media coverage, because no sheriff ever fails to have that — to be considered notable enough for a Wikipedia article, a sheriff needs to be demonstrably more notable than the norm for his usually non-notable class of topic. Which means (a) demonstrably wider coverage than most other sheriffs could also show, and/or (b) demonstrably more coverage than most other sheriffs could also show. Not just "coverage exists", because coverage of all sheriffs always exists, but a reason why this sheriff is more notable than most other sheriffs. The class of topic is not inherently notable, so to qualify for an article a sheriff does have to be a special case, over and above most other sheriffs who don't qualify for Wikipedia articles. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 13 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 after improvements. ansh 666 02:32, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sonthar Gyal[edit]

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

Non notable director. Fails WP:DIRECTOR –Ammarpad (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tibet-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has directed 2 films including The Sun Beaten Path, another titled Lhamo and Skalbe appears to be in post-production. Also worked as a cinematographer for some Pema Tseden films like Old Dog, The Search (2009 film), and The Silent Holy Stones. Sources in Chinese and Tibetan are aplenty: Timmyshin (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So he has directed two films and directing the third; that's your reason of his notability and meriting an article in encyclopedia? That's not policy/guideline-based reason. Also your claim "Sources are a plenty" is empty statement. Show that they indeed exist by using them to improve the article –Ammarpad (talk) 10:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the article. What now? Timmyshin (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Notable Director and Cinematographer.A ri gi bod (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. The English-language sources that I put in the article when I contested WP:PROD deletion are enough to substantiate notability. Tibetan and Chinese sources can only add to that. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are not. They may be enough to show notability of the film but cannot support biography.
1. Your first source this book: Pop Culture in Asia and Oceania did indeed mentioned the film, but cannot support any claim in biography.
2. The second book also is more of Tibet culture (which of course) will cause mentioning of movies. His two movies may be more notable than him and deserve an article, but even them I don't think they can survive with these sources of passing mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks notable enough, you've got secondary sources. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:22, 15 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) 02:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher DeRubeis[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria for artists, WP:ARTIST. The sources provided are his own website, a press release, websites of galleries that represent his work and a single piece of local Santa Clarita news. I'm not quite sure what's going on with the MUSE Awards. If the nominations are for the MUSE awards that I'm thinking of (http://museaward.com/) then there are a few problems: they have no “Mixed Media” and “New Movement” categories, and getting nominated means nothing, because anyone can enter the competition. Per WP:BEFORE I can't find a reliable source that says he won any award. The claim that DeRubeis is the "Father of the Conceptual Movement" is patently absurd. That would mean that other conceptual artists acknowledge that deRubeis had a seminal influence on the development of conceptual art. That is not the case, and no reliable sources exist that back up that claim. We don't take a gallery's (or more accurately, a picture framer's) word for such a statement. The article is promotional and should be deleted. Mduvekot (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In no way was this article intended as a "puff piece," or as being promotional in nature, simply informative. While DeRubeis may not fulfill all the notability criteria perfectly, that certainly does not mean that he fails them. On the contrary, there is more that he meets than what he doesn't, which continues to increase. And galleries are not actually "representing" his work by exhibiting it, simply providing a venue. Rather, they serve to provide a reliable third party source of information about the nature of a work and its impact. - JGabbard (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JGabbard Can you please let us know which of the 4 notability criteria you think DeRubeis meets and why? My assessment is that he is not regarded as an important figure, is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique, has not has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work and that his work has not become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention and is not is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot Certainly -- How can you say that DeRubeis has not originated a new technique when he has crafted his own trademarked style of art ("abstract sensualism")? He is world renowned for his innovative work, so therefore he fulfills notability standard #2. His accomplishments more than justify what little is written here. These standards, while they are very high, are also rather arbitrary, placing younger artists at a disadvantage. Also, standards #1 and #4 may not have universal applicability, because DeRubeis' primary appeal is to first-time art collectors. However, by being heralded as the "Master of Metal Art" (i.e., metal painting), there is some basis for asserting that he has fulfilled these as well. So he has not only found his niche in the art world but has been shown to have actually expanded its base, and the trajectory of his increasing international acclaim is certainly consistent with the general tenor of all of these notability criteria. - JGabbard (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Trademarked style" is just baloney, as painting styles are not trademarkable. We do not go for hyped language like this here. Removed from article lede.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what deRubeis or people who sell his work say about him. We only care what other people say about him or his work. If you claim that he meets criteria 1, can you name the independent, reliable source that says he is an important figure? Same for all the other criteria, please Mduvekot (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this documentary by The Global Touch Group: Behind The Artist: Chris Derubeis. Abstract Sensualism

The Global Touch Group is a branding and content development agency. As a source they are unusable, because they are neither independent nor reliable. Please familiarize yourself with our guideline on identifying reliable sources. Mduvekot (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the abovementioned lack of reliable independent sources. While the standards of notability may seem "arbitrary", due to the disadvantage that younger artists face, they are, however the standards which exist, and this isn't the place to discuss whether they need an overhaul. Further, younger artists are entirely less likely to be notable even if the only notability standard applied is GNG, so there's nothing dramatic there. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The vast majority of the sources (all except one, as far as I can see) were directly or indirectly produced by the article subject. Does not meet either GNG or ARTIST guidelines.104.163.153.162 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jota González[edit]

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

Non-notable sports coach. De-prodded with a claim that the subject meets WP:NSPORT, but they do not meet the basic criteria, and there is no specific guideline for handball coaches. There is hardly any coverage in independent sources, and what is there is routine. – Joe (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for sports coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My reason for deprodding was a little more nuanced than stated by the nominator: "Head coach of a team in a professional league and coach of the year would seem to way exceed the spirit of WP:ATHLETE. Handball is a major sport in many countries, just not anglophone countries". I'm sure that the only reason for a lack of specific handball notability criteria is that the sport is little-known in anglophone countries, but it is a major sport in mainland Europe, and, if we judge things on a world-wide basis, its practitioners are at least as notable as those of, say, baseball or rugby league. I'm sure that if there were specific notability guidelines for handball they would include being head coach in a professional national league and the EHF Cup. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per 86.17.222.157 and the sources this IP has added [17]. Υπογράφω (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jota González is an above average coach in his field, but that does not merit a Wikipedia article on him. Definite lack of reliable/independent sources and outstanding achievements.desmay (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is unreliable and/or non-independent about the sources that I cited? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States House of Representatives Republican Leader election, 2006[edit]

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

This is essentially redundant. The resignation and election are covered just fine in the articles of Tom DeLay and John Boehner, respectively. There is no need for a standalone article for an in-party election of the second-most-important job in the party. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need articles on the election of every position. Number 5 7 11:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- covered other places, could possibly be mentioned in 109th United States Congress too, but I really don't feel its that important of an election.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with ~~109th United States Congress per Rusf10 - it kinda is an important election. Meets WP:GNG, but it will be better served in the context of that congress.~~ John Boehner ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it be better served in the context of John Boehner's rise to the Speakership. My bad.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 05:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out his article, and DeLay's, it's fairly well covered in both, I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jemish Patel[edit]

(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. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HARD with STYLE[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. A search for sources to support notability returned only trivial mention. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not weighing on notability right now, ( I see some coverage in EDM sites, which may fail RS and corpdepth) but perhaps a redirect to Headhunterz? L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 00:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of third party reliable sources makes it fail the WP:GNG. Beyond that, it's generally not a good sign for notability of a record label when every single release and every single artist listed in their "release list" aren't notable enough to have their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 21:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Chanda, Sagnika (2016). "The Posthuman Child as a Genderless Ideal". Sanglap: Journal of Literary and Cultural Inquiry. 3 (1): 28–43.

[2] Nilsen, Alleen Pace; Nilsen, Don LF (2009). "Artemis Fowl, An Irish Rogue". First Opinions, Second Reactions. 1 (3): 4.

[3] Vanhala, P. (2015). Eco-consciousness and environmental ethics in Eoin Colfer's Artemis Fowl (PDF) (MSc). University of Tampere.

[4] Owens, B. J. (2013). Disagreeable, Villainous, and Wimpy: The Child as Antihero in Burnett, Colfer, and Kinney (Honours). University of Southern Mississippi.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]