Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 19: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:53, 19 January 2017

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 January	20 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penal Code (Malaysia)

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

This page essentially reproduces the entire penal code, and should be transwikied across to WikiSource as a result. The Historian (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but simpilyfy the structure section (or expanding/removing it) since it is still necessary for the information about the Malaysia penal code (Example like the date enacted etc). NgYShung ^huh? 09:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relic (Dungeons & Dragons)

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at the very least Redirect to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Not only does this concept have no reliable sources to establish notability, but it seems that in the majority of D&D versions, it wasn't even a thing. It was just a generic word used to describe magic items, or used interchangeably with other, similar terms, like "artifact". 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). An unsourced article for such a generic term says it all. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 01:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as suggested above. To the artifacts section (a topic which I actually think _could_ meet the GNG). Hobit (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Relic#Relics in Fiction. This is classic IPC content. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). It's about magic items in D&D, but it doesn't establish notability (and Google results turn up nothing good). The IP editor has a point in that this isn't even a thing in many versions of D&D. Still, it's worth a mention. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regalia of Might

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons. BOZ (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of major artifacts in Dungeons & Dragons - No reliable, non-primary sources seem to exist that discuss these items in any meaningful way, and its already included in the current artifact list here on Wikipedia. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2012 FIRS Senior Men's Inline Hockey World Championships

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Standard World Championships page for a major sport. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Djsasso: on what planet is this a "major sport"? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing})
  - The planet where it has had national television contracts. We aren't talking some sport that 10 people take part in. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Djsasso: HAH! Touche. Well said! I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. The page is full of redlinks and multiple pretty broken templates. I guess I'm advocating WP:TNT. 99% of the page is taken up by tables that don't actually have any useful data in them. This is my stance on most of the Inline Hockey templates I AFDed (is that a verb? I'm making it one....). --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not going to be sarcastic and ask "But which planet was that?" because then I will look like an idiot if you can show that it was on national TV in some country. Nonetheless, I do need to ask for some proof of this. My weak delete below is predicated on the assumption that there is no sign that this event was noticed by the media, let alone received significant coverage in reliable sources. I could be wrong. Maybe the article title here is not quite correct or maybe the coverage is not in English, either of which could cause my searches to fail to find the coverage. If there is notability then please show it. National broadcast TV coverage in any country would do but we can't just assume there must be notability based on the name phrase "world championship" in the title. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (which I will happily strike if anybody can show that this event was broadcast on national TV in any country). A world championship sounds like it should be notable but we have no references here at all and it is all unverifiable now that the one external link is dead. Maybe it was verifiable when it was written so I won't hold that against it but the lack of anything on the Google News links is a big red flag to me. The media can't ever publish enough minor sports news to satiate its readers and yet I'm not seeing anything for this subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In 1992 FIRS were the organizing body that brought inline hockey to the olympics as a demonstration sport, ESPN showed some, and broadcast live Pro games primarily from the RHI throughout the '90's. However modern championships are streamed online by FIRS itself. I follow the championships but am undecided on the yearly FIRS championships notability.18abruce (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Rupp Award

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MVP award of a top professional league of a sport is very clearly notable. And I would note it isn't unsourced. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Note I stand corrected... It has ONE source. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While logically it seems like it should have an article, I cannot find any sourcing to justify my own opinion and therefore must choose to delete per WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 PIHA Pro playoffs

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

One source... Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not trivial. Standard season page for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or maybe a very limited merge if anybody can reliably reference anything here of value. This one was referenced, albeit only to primary sources. The links are all dead now but that is not fatal. We should judge it based on the value of the links when they were working. Trouble is they were all primary sources and there is nothing here to show notability even if there is/was verifiability. It looks like non-notable sportscruft to me. Google News is not showing anything obvious and, given how the media loves to publish even very minor sports coverage, that does not look good for the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This is trivia. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PIHA Pro playoffs

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm neutral on this one. This is about what the playoffs are in general rather than a lot of cruft about specific results. It could be a merge target for what little info in the articles about the specific playoffs is worth keeping and can be reliably referenced. I'm not !voting keep on something completely unreferenced but I'm not !voting delete either as unreferenced stubs are legitimate. I don't hold out great hopes that anybody will want to improve this article but there is no harm in leaving that option open. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Professional Inline Hockey Association, which briefly mentions that they have a playoff. (What sports league doesn't?) That section could be expanded slightly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above and fails WP:GNG. Very little/no information to warrant a merge. GauchoDude (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports. T. Canens (talk) 09:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comité International de Roller In-Line Hockey

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The international organizing body of a sport is not Trivial. -DJSasso (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (with optional limited merge) to the actual international organising body: Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports. We don't need an article about a specific committee within that body unless it is separately notable. The article is unreferenced and the Google links show enough to prove that the committee exists but nothing jumps out to prove it notable. It does not seem to have a website or even a page on the FIdRS site that I can find. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. As User:Shawn in Montreal noted, this particular entity is an committee within an organizing body. I'm not convinced it passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Roller Hockey Pro Division

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was a major professional league in the sport of roller hockey. -DJSasso (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a league. It is a division within a league. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was a league, it was setup as a pyramid like European sports. They were each separate leagues under one league banner. Admittedly the terminology is confusing. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or very limited merge to Major League Roller Hockey if any of this can be referenced. This is mostly insufficiently notable sportscruft. It may deserve a short paragraph in the main article but not an article of its own. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What was the justification for relisting this for a 3rd time? Exemplo347 (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is being completely disruptive with all these AfDs. WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players. Please stop. You are being completely disruptive and need to knock it off. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Agree with DanielRigal. Does not deserve an article of its own as this is mostly not notable sportscruft. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. General consensus to keep due to the presence of reliable sources. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Roller Hockey

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the top organizations in the sport of roller hockey. Clearly notable. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that it wasn't created by user who created a swath of articles. Nom has been putting that in all his listings dispite the fact that many of them have not been. Plenty of sources on highbeam and google. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage apparent at GNews, HighBeam confirms the notability of this organization, although the article could stand some heavy editing and clearer sourcing.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos:That argument seems to be WP:MUSTBESOURCES. If there are sources, provide them here. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 01:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not there "must be" sources, there are sources. Just click the findsources links above for HighBeam and GNews and there they are. I can contemplate reducing the number of articles relating to this league by judicious mergers and deletions, but I don't see how we could reasonably conclude that this, the main article about the league, should be deleted.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return to earth

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

Unreferenced. Contains so little information about the movie that it adds nothing to the encyclopedia (and is not verifiable without references). See film notability guidelines, which this stub doesn't meet.

If a plot summary and review information are added within seven days, may keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Buzz Aldrin for now. The movie existed, and was based on his autobiography of the same name, both of which are mentioned in his article. However, I am finding zero mentions of this outside of basic movie database stats. I, so far, have not found a single review. So, I say Redirect for now, but with no prejudice to recreate the article if reviews or other reliable sources come to light. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ 64.183.45.226: No need to recreate later what can be shown as notable and improved now. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some sources to make this stub minimally acceptable. There is more information in the ones I have used, as well as a decent discussion of the events surrounding the production in Aldrin's book “Magnificent Desolation” which can be read here to provide for further expansion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If closed as keep, this should be moved to Return to Earth (film). Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 23:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - So moved and further improved. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per improvements and sources added. I began some work and certainly more can be done. IE: Toledo Blade. Considering the actors involved back in 1976, this project had enough coverage then to meet WP:NF even now... and sorry, though it can be mentioned in the article of the subject that he wrote a book in 1973 made into a film in 1976, a redirect does not serve to inform our readers. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 09:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe enough sources have been found to meet notability requirements. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Mendonca

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

Full of primary sources and interviews. Some of the sources have been written by himself. Written to promote herself by an SPA. The article is also promotional in nature. Contains promotional wordings and a list of non notable awards and events which promote her. Mar11 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as it fails reliable sources. Self promotion and primary sources do not meet Wiki guidelines. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Founders Cup playoffs

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

Unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very standard season article for a professional sports league. -DJSasso (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has put the league itself,or even this cup, up for deletion. The question is not whether the league or cup is notable. It is whether this specific set of play-offs is notable enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete as unreferenced and probably non-notable sportscruft. I am not seeing Google News hits to suggest it is notable. Given that the media can't get enough of low level sports trivia, I'd expect to see some passing mentions even if this were not notable. Maybe I was not searching exactly the right thing, so I'm not saying that there is definitely nothing to be found, but the lack of anything obvious is enough to suggest it is not going to support its own article. If anything here is notable, reliably referenceable (and not already covered) then I guess it could be merged to Founders Cup (PIHA) (which is also an unreferenced article in need of much work although not an obviously a deletion candidate to my eyes). --DanielRigal (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. The main article, Founders Cup (PIHA) was an uncontested prod. If that's not notable, then a specific season of that should most certainly not have a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alphacet

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

This company is not notable and may not even exist any more. SupremeWikiOverfiend (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Sorry I need some kind person to tag if for me due to crappy computer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SupremeWikiOverfiend (talk • contribs) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not temporary, a company that no longer exists can still be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; the article is too promotional to consider keeping. Sample content:

"Alpha generation platforms have been receiving increased attention as automated trading continues to grow within many key markets. According to the Aite Group, 30% of all European and U.S. stock trades were driven by automatic programs in 2006, and they predict that by 2010, 50% of all U.S. stock trades will be run by automatic programs.

This is pure "marketing brochure" speak. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear business listing sourced by business announcements and their own websites, WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 19:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable about this company - not its size, products, innovation, people who work there... nothing. With apologies to whoever created the page and the people who work at the company, this page doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.

Ira Leviton (talk) 13:13, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This belongs to brochures which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. A search online for any other sources doesn't yield much. Xaxing (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Saad

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

Doesn't seem notable. The artist does not have a lot of press coverage. Plus no artworks in permanent collections. She has received two awards, but they don't seem to be that important. Susana Hodge (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is bit more than as referenced in the article; I found pretty quickly at least one main stream reliable secondary source. Article also needs balance, I also found pretty quickly her winning one of the awards created some controversy which is available in secondary source/s. I suggest potentially notable but perhaps TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete she may have won these awards but no notable awards and no third party coverage. Creative professionals need wider coverage like in mainstream press or major awards. She has neither. LibStar (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Nine's Wide World of Sports. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cricket Show

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

TV program tagged with unsourced since 2009. Found some mentions in passing of the show, but nothing that I think proves notability of a program which only airs during the 'lunch break' of a sporting event. I'm happy if sports fans can locate reliable sources to establish notability, but I'm not seeing it right now. I'd also support a merge into the broadcaster's sports coverage article or a broadcasting section of an appropriate Cricket article. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge up to list of programs in its broadcaster's article. Could not find remotely sufficient for notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nine's Wide World of Sports#Cricket. Given the surprising amount of cultural import the Nine commentary team have, I'm kind of surprised they don't have their own article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge into Nine's Wide World of Sports#Cricket. As above, not independently notable enough, but worth keeping the content in the main article about the channel. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MusicDealers

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

I feel that the reasoning given by @SwisterTwister: in their PROD (removed by the page creator) is valid; "Searches have found nothing but mere announcements, mentions and listings with none of it being the needed substance and there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else; listed sources are still only the mirrored announcements and mentions." No indication of WP:ORG being met. 331dot (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I still confirm my analysis and basis, with WP:Wikipedia is not a business listing, applying. SwisterTwister talk 18:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- wholly unremarkable. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Philippines HD

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

Fails WP:GNG Nickrds09 ^{(Talk to me)} 07:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject lacks notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable YouTube channel involving fantasy TV with no content to speak of, and using a high-profile trademark that's kind of shaky to use. Nate • (chatter) 00:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

R. Scott Oswald

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

He is non-notable. His cases have received some media coverage, but he for himself hasn't received much coverage. The awards mentioned in the article are either regional or from online publications. Susana Hodge (talk) 09:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - moderately noted CLE lecturer, often in the media, and active in the ABA. What do you think, Newyorkbrad, or SpyLawyer? Bearian (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sparesbox

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

Fails WP:NOT. Advertising article for company started in 2014. scope_creep (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences but that is not grounds for deletion. Has multiple independent reliable sources for content. Style is not especially (non/)promotional but that could be fixed anyway. And it secured naming rights within a significant race event. That in itself is potentially notable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- "One of many such organisations with no particular outstanding differences..." means that this subject is "non notable". That aside, this article should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO; just an unremarkable private company going about its business. Awards are trivial, while the content is advertorial in nature. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ if I may. Notability depends on multiple reliable secondary references, not the nature or status of the article subject. Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The listed sources are not independent and are either company announcements or promo. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sidharth Prabhu

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

All the references are about the TV Show. Notability is not inherited, and the child actor is therefore not inherently notable. Jupitus Smart 10:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Notability is not inherited and this has no references besides the show. -- Dane ^talk 02:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Bascom

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

Fails WP:GNG. The work she is doing is honorable, but she does not qualify for a Wikipedia page at the moment. The books she has edited or written have not received any significant coverage either. All the Ghits are trivial mentions or quotes in the media. Susana Hodge (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems to pass WP:GNG. Articles about subject in Huffington Post [1], Psychology Today [2], Voice of America [3] and over 50 non- trivial mentions or quotations in The Atlantic, Business Insider, LA Times, The Guardian, on CNN and ABC News, etc. CBS527^Talk 02:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources noted above. ABF99 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Uncontested. Sandstein 08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rakendu

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

Google returns results for Rakendu Mouli, another actor/musician. This person has probably acted in a prominent role in a non-notable film and has a few other minor credits. Non notable actor/cricketer. Jupitus Smart 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yazir Saleem

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

Non notable actor/director. Fails WP:FILM. Did not play the lead role in the movie mentioned in the Wiki page. Jupitus Smart 11:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cannot find reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Discussion about reverting to a different version of the article and other aspects of the article can be discussed further on its talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Sabet

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

Doesn't have anything particularly notable to his name, most of the current sources are dead and/or only give a passing mention, and overall the article feels a little promotional, disregarding the part about the jail sentence he received. Layla ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ 14:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources in German are just as valid as sources in English, and previous versions of the article, such as this one had some sources in English including a New York Times profile. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone thinks that the first clause of this statement doesn't make sense, I would point out that the nominator changed the nomination statement after there had been some replies, rather than following the customary procedure of striking. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Layla, the remover: Note that per WP:GNG, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course sources in German are just as good as ones in English, and giving that as a reason for deletion is absurd. However, a check of a sample of the sources, both in the current version of the article and in the October 2010 version linked by the IP editor, suggest that they are all either dead links or sources which mention Hossein Sabet, but do not give substantial coverage. For example, the New York Times article is not a "profile" of October 2010: it is an article about the island of Kish; it includes a little coverage of a hotel owned by Hossein Sabet, and in the course of doing so mentions him several times, but it is not substantially about him, which calling it a "profile" might suggest. Since I have not checked all of the references, I am not committing myself to either "keep" or "delete", but on the basis of the sample of references which I have looked at, it looks unlikely that there is sufficient evidence of notability. I hope to come back when I have time to check more thoroughly. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as sources in German are acceptable, so are sources that are properly cited but no longer available on the Internet, such as those from Die Zeit and The Globe and Mail cited in that earlier version of the article. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of transparency I have to say that I am the editor who added sources in 2010. I'm pretty sure that those that are no longer available online had significant coverage of the subject. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm that I am the person currently editing from IP address 86.17.222.157. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This edit by a SPA removed the reliable NY Times source and introduced BLP violations. The nomination that followed by 25 minutes suggests a connection between this SPA and the nominator. Even without this connection, the nomination fails to show WP:BEFORE D1 workmanship on Google books to explain the 1989 book Iran: from royal dictatorship to theocracy which has the snippet, "The businesses of two leading industrialists, Habibollah Elghanian and Hossein Sabet, were closed down, and both were imprisoned on the charges of profiteering." Other notes that the nomination fails to make are that there are Persian and German [4] Wikipedia articles. Also, the "Der Abend" link in the article has a proper target in [5], which also has sources. Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOT in fact applies because it's clear business advertising and that all alone is always a convincing basis because we as an encyclopedia have never accepted advertising and, as long we're an independent encyclopedia, we never will. The SK comment has no policy-backed basis and nothing else to suggest there's a genuine speedy need. This article has clear signs of WP:NOT violations because it's only business-focused, including such specifics as business plans. As it is, the comments about the sourcing above themselves show no one has been able to find suitable sourcing hence nothing to suggest an accepted article, and in this, it violates our non-negotiable policies, these exact which maintain Wikipedia itself. SwisterTwister talk 21:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Football

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

Giant, barely-referenced, jokey article about a game with no indication of notability per WP:GNG. I can find no coverage of it online in WP:RS, just a few jokey-sounding blogs. The whole thing might be a hoax or a joke along the lines of Mornington Crescent (game), but if not, then there's no indication that it merits an entire article. Wikishovel (talk) 16:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, not verifiable, and violates WP:NOT -- it's basically a detailed instruction manual.Glendoremus (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - Verifiable and widely practiced/taught at youth religious and secular gatherings. Secondary sources are available from church-community publications, instructional guides provided by regional youth-group leaders etc. Earliest online reference dates back 22 years. When I have time I will update the article with some more appropriate and careful citations.
XXXX (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have reformatted your list of sources to avoid the <ref> tags, which cause them to display incorrectly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:DGG under criterion G11. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 15:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation

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

Unremarkable company with only passing mentions in secondary sources. GoldenRing (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could consider CSD A7 or G11. GoldenRing (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank You for your comment GoldenRing But i want to provide the info that it's a known company for semiconductor industry . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.75.96.89 (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this article they have added real source and contents .HSMC are a best source to give the knowledge about their industry. I think it's appropriate to withdraw this AfD from the article. If any one thinks for deletion , so first tell to article owner to remove that content which are looking for the deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elandik (talk • contribs) 07:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep This article should not be deleted , This is the first organisation in India who are going to manufacture the semiconductor Products . So, This article should add in Encylopedia now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saranyadas (talk • contribs)

- I've reverted an improper closure by the above editor. ansh666 21:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clerk note: Saranyadas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a Confirmed sockpuppet of Smithtony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smithtony. GAB^gab 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Heim

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSICBIO. found no real coverage and hardly any article links to this. LibStar (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the article was under-resourced but the subject is notable per WP:MUSICBIO#1, #9 and #12.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am yet to form an opinion but am leaning to the delete side. @Shaidar cuebiyar: Can you list which references you are relying on for #1, #9, and #12 please. Aoziwe (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few of them that are in the article, but specifically: the current refs 1&3, 6&7. Additionally consider the following items: 1, 2, and 3.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is a biography that was supplied by the article's subject, per the note at the reference "Biography provided by the composer — current to March 2007". As such it's a primary source. Reference 3 is actually broken. You need to go to reference 1 to find the list. Reference 6 lists the subject as a guest, but provides very little else. Reference 7 is the detail for reference 6. Together they actually provide only one reference. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs 1&3 are provided by an independent body and the catalogue shows that the subject has performed/composed numerous works. Refs 6&7 show that he was the subject of a national radio programme (yes, he was a guest on it!) which described his research on dementia and baroque music.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is still very clearly a primary source, per the note on the page. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources, some for the baroque study and some on additional content on his work as a theatre director.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm yet to form an opinion but some of the references in the article don't seem to meet the requirements of WP:GNG, regardless of what WP:MUSICBIO might say. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to have a good amount of references, and Mr. Helm has been talked about in 3rd party sources. I would say that we should leave it alone, or try to improve it. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick A. Salvi

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

Previously listed, still true: "The notability is in the cases they dealt with. Most of the references are about the cases, not about the firm. The others are mere notices of placement of various lists or appointments or minor local prizes. The article is indistinguishable from what law firms use for advertising." Calton | Talk 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Few mentions in passing, in-depth coverage limited to primary sources/press releases or otherwise COI-written. Not seeing how he passe NBIO. He is just a lawyer doing quite well for himself, but not reaching the notability required to be in an encyclopedia, IMHO. PS. Prior AfD closed as no-consensus due to no participation; pinging nominator of last AfD User:DGG.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mentions in passing does meet WP:GNG. There must be sources about him. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too spammy to consider worth keeping. Wikipedia is not a resume hosting service or a client brochure. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tuff Sunshine

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

Fails WP:Band. 18 followers on Sound Cloud and no entries in Discogs, nothing in Spotify either. scope_creep (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Public TV of Azov

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

Seemingly fails WP:RS; the article contains no independent third-party sources at all. Buzz105 (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of links to the article. It's very important and influential local channel. --Ivasykus (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Kurykh (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)

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

WP:OR, overly detailed coat rack. In fact just a list of programs, often not notable, broadcasted (not made) by a local channel. And according to an article owner: WHO ARE YOU?! YOU DON'T ANYHOW CHANGE THE COLOUR AT "List of MediaCorp Channel 8 Chinese drama series (2010s)"! THAT PAGE IS FOR SINGAPOREANS TO READ! NOT FOR OVERSEAS PEOPLE LIKE YOU! IF THAT PAGE MADE YOU PUKE, THEN DON'T READ IT! NO ONE ASK YOU TO READ! BY THE WAY, THAT PAGE IS NOT FOR READING! If the page is Singaporeans only, it is not relevant for the worldwide Wikipedia. And when the article is not for reading, what else is the use of this article? The Banner talk 13:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the nom is correct on the facts. The articles for A Child's Hope II, 118 II, and Don't Worry, Be Healthy (to sample a few found in Category:MediaCorp Chinese language programmes) all describe the series as produced by or originally airing on MediaCorp Channel 8. And if this channel has notable original programming, then it merits a list for those programmes. Let's hear from someone actually familiar with the subject matter before we jump to deletion conclusions. postdlf (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- He's also been abusing people similarly on their user talk pages. But this is why warnings need to be issued, even for IPs. None have been. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a useful list of dramas on Channel 8, which is a channel of the national (and only) TV broadcaster Mediacorp. Channel 8 is watched by a lot of people and I think it is encyclopaedic and helpful to preserve this list. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about original programming The vast majority of dramas on Channel 8 are produced by government owned Mediacorp itself in Singapore. And the Channel 8 itself is one of the few local television channels here (There are only 7 television channels in Singapore, all controlled by Mediacorp). These few channels have lots of viewers and it is useful to keep this info. The side effect of lots of viewers is the disruptive editing and "fan edits" on these articles. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I usually keep a watch on these articles and I am aware of sourcing/NOR problems. However, sometimes it slips through my watchlist. If there is any disruptive editing, please let me know on my talk page and I would be happy to help out. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; we are not a TV guide. Sandstein 09:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanju Philips

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR: Can't find anything to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 10:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Olive Church of God

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

If this was created today it would be speedied A7. Since it's now 11 years old, it's difficult to conclusively say that all of its revisions definitely qualify for A7 per WP:CSD (and I'm not going to go through them all just to avoid an AfD), but the current one certainly does.

Searches turn up lots of trivial mentions, but basically all appear to be "so and so, who died tragically, was a member of Mount Olive Church of God, and is interred at such and such place". Nothing to indicate notability. TimothyJosephWood 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This reads like someone took it directly from a pamphlet which means this is likely and entirely, a WP:copyright violation. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, was not nominated for speedy due to the large number of previous revisions. TimothyJosephWood 14:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are trivial mentions, as TimothyJosephWood notes, but nothing beyond that. Ok the church exists, is active, hosts fireworks, has people that die and get mentioned in obituaries, but the church itself isn't notable. This article has existed for a long, long time. There was a prior AfD in 2006 that closed as no consensus. But, I think the closer there made a mistake. Two of the keep recommendations there were from single purpose accounts that have never edited before or since. 10 years on, there's still nothing to indicate notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is not a single source in any of these articles that is not a clear WP:PRIMARY source. Claims therefore noted below that the seasons pass WP:EVENT are entirely unsubstantiated. There is no indication that these seasons have received significant, reliable, third party coverage as a season rather than a synthesis of match reports. Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous as that guideline is concerned solely with college teams, not their competitions. Simply put, with no indication of GNG, these articles are clear WP:NOTSTATS failures. Fenix down (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 America East Conference men's soccer season

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT as "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." which also results in failures of WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:NOPAGE. Doesn't satisfy WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements.

Existing consensus already achieved at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament, which are identical situations.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasoning as above:

– GauchoDude (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. GauchoDude is right, this sort of coverage should be developed in the main article first until it becomes clear that it can stand alone. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a waste of time and resources to nominate. On the contrary, meets WP:GNG and WP:EVENT because of reliable sources and third party sources. Quidster4040 (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: There is clear consensus for related articles that, despite your repeated objections, this does not satisfy notability criteria. GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there might be a consensus in your head. However, there is no valid criticism that it doesnt meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT. Might as well remove all the college basketball and college football conference season articles while you're on a bloodlust purge. Quidster4040 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Quidster4040, in his objection, has removed the AfD template on the following articles:

2016 America East Conference men's soccer season as you can see here
2016 Big West Conference men's soccer season as you can see here
2016 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament as you can see here

– GauchoDude (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Articles are well developed and satisfy WP:EVENT. I don't see the issue. And to those who say it should be developed in the main article, this is the main article. The prior AfDs were for tournaments, which are part of the season and arguably should be part of the season article itself. That argument doesn't fly in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: Per your opinion, @Smartyllama:, which criteria of WP:EVENT does it satisfy? The inclusion criteria are, as defined by WP:EVENTCRITERIA, are a WP:LASTING effect, a large WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DEPTH of coverage, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and WP:DIVERSE sourcing. For me, none of those are met, but to the contrary this seems WP:ROUTINE. I find it difficult to fathom that individual seasons would be worthy of stand-alone articles when the sport doesn't have one (similar to the tournament and the America East Conference page doesn't even have a section on the entire sport's history. GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - season not tournament. Seems notable enough. Nfitz (talk) 02:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nom: @Nfitz: appreciate the feedback here. Can you elaborate on "Seems notable enough" and how you arrived to that conclusion? Up above (to User:Smartyllama), I noted the WP:EVENTCRITERIA for which I'm having trouble justifying inclusion. Would be interested to hear your take on these and which you feel is(/are?) met. Thanks! GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @GauchoDude: WP:NSEASONS defines when for college sports teams, an individual season for the top collegiate level is notable. Surely then it goes without saying that the season article for the entire league is notable! Nfitz (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Think it's time to close the debate. There's a clear consensus that the article should be kept. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 08:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - don't need season articles for college soccer. Giant Snowman 08:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not GiantSnowman? We have season article for other college sports such as ice hockey, baseball, football and basketball. There's no legitimate reason to invalidate soccer? Quidster4040 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Underwood

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

This is a problematic article. Firstly, the actor subject (now retired) fails WP:NACTOR as their only notable role was Zoey 101. Second, the primary sourcing at this article is tabloid-fodder scandal, and we don't leave articles on Wikipedia that primarily serve as a virtual Attack page on its subject. This article needs to be deleted (to purge the problematic page history) – after deletion, it can then be replaced by a redirect to Zoey 101. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per IJBall's rationale. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jim

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

I have proposed deletion because this article is about an individual who fails to meet WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is about non-notable events in a non-notable person; and is un-sourced, written with a non-neutral POV. The only sources listed is about a general lawsuit that has no notoriety. Five of the sources about the one case are broken links that cannot be verified. The only remaining source is a student paper. A Google search on the individual turns up personal webpages and social media sites GuyWhoLikesToHaveFun (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Brother Jim

weak keep The problem is there are few good indepth sources of coverage. However reliable sources can be found to cover him for years. The article is not good at present, and will take work to make useful, but I think he pases notability. I just found info on a 3rd federal law suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This article has the feel of an ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brother Jim

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatiha Idmhand

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While they are definitely secondary -- along the lines of her "day job" -- claims of notability are also possibly being made for her as an author and academic. She doesn't seem to pass the bar there either but those should be considered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 5 cites on GS totally fails WP:Prof. Sports sources are negligible. WP:Too soon if ever. Creator needs to study WP:Notability before creating more BLPs. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as nothing for WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Per WP:DPR#NAC, I, an admin, am vacating the above closure and reclosing this as soft delete. A request for undeletion may be made at WP:RFU without further reference to me. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Jose De Toro Saiz

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

~~The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 06:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

I am using my discretion as an admin under WP:DPR#NAC to vacate the above closure and reclose this debate as soft delete. An undelete may be requested at WP:RFU without further formality. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Oberhofer

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, f eminist 03:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sue Yeomans

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. By common sense measures, she is a notable athlete for accomplishments at her age and has recently achieved some level of fame through a nytimes article covering Masters events. Comprehensive list of achievements is a valuable resource.140.247.87.87 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to said article? While there is one in the ([[6]], I believe she is only mentioned in one sentence, which doesn't qualify on its own. I'm honestly quite shocked that she doesn't have more coverage, but based on the searches I have done, it does seem hard to argue that she doesn't meet WP:GNG-MATThematical (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I'm a bit shocked that this person does not meet WP:GNG, but given the sports person is from an English Speaking country, my suspission is that extensive articles do not exist for this person, given that we can't find them in basic internet searches. If talk can produce the forementioned NY times article I would change my mind. But until then its a delete for me. MATThematical (talk) 06:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Windolf

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources provide substaintial coverage including a 4 minute news clip from what I think is a German news station (tough to tell exactly what it is because it is in German). We should note that because most of the sources are not in English, there is likely many sources that a google search would miss, and hence google searches are not a good source for this notability discussion. MATThematical (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly which of the sources on this page do you think have substantial coverage? Certainly none of the ones on the article which are purely made up of result lists. I also don't see this news clip you mention, perhaps I am missing something. -DJSasso (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It is actually a 3 minute Televesion clip (not 4, sorry for the error) from the TV station RTL in norway. It takes a while to load, so it is easy to miss in the last reference, 14. I'm not so sure if it is enough on its own to gaurantee WP:GNG coverage, because I don't speak the language, but at least in the United States a 3 minute TV story is very substantial, most "local man does X" stories are very short, less than a minute, at every channel I have watched). I think its existence does suggest that other sources would be pretty easy to find by a native speaker located in Norway, caution must be taken in an AFD when we don't speak the language the sources are in. MATThematical (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough sources to keep this article about this sports player viable.TH1980 (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning World Masters Athletics Championships four times seems like a strong claim of notability to me. It's strange, though, that WP:NATHLETE doesn't really cover decathlons and other track and field events. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered in the WP:NTRACK section. That is actually why this article was created. The author was trying to prove he could find coverage for any medal winning masters athlete because addition of masters athletes to ntrack has been routinely rejected there because most of them they simply can't be sourced. This one is borderline as there appears to be possibly a video source, although nothing else has been turned up so it fails having multiple sources. -DJSasso (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A strong claim of notability backed up by the sources needed to support the claim. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would point out there is only one possible source in the video. We do require multiple, all the other sources on the page are results lists. I have been unable to turn anything else up. I have no problem keeping if we can indeed find some more sources. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for "harburg-aktuell" not being considered as another source. Again it is in German, so tough to tell, but that article is very extensive. It talks about his family his training, his childhood as a gymnast, and his injuries. This certainly isn't a WP:ROUTINE sports listing of mere statistics, so I am assuming you are arguing that "harburg-aktuell" isn't a reliable source. Please explain why, as you have yet to explain why this source should not be counted towards his notability. --MATThematical (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terhi Kokkonen (athlete)

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

weak delete: I do warn that because the athlete is from a non english speaking country it may be difficult to find sources even if they do exist. But since she doesn't meet WP:NTRACK the burden of proof goes on the author that such sources exist. The sources in the article alone do not suffice because they are WP:ROUTINE. --MATThematical (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 05:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galina Kovalenskaya

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article creator. This is part of a greater dispute. There are currently 11 references from seven distinct sources. This is the general kind of sourcing you will find on a Masters athlete. There are more sources like it. In English speaking countries, their elite athletes will usually get feature articles written about them and their meets. "Oh look at grandpa run." What we have a problem finding is the matching prosaic articles about those athletes in former Iron Curtain countries in particular. There is a media and language barrier we in the "west" don't currently overcome. Very few sources in those countries will google. This attack on this Russian Masters athlete wants to take advantage of search engine weaknesses.

Look at this subject's accomplishments. She is a multiple world record holder, thus the best in her field. She will permanently hold the 3K Shot Put world record because the event was changed. She is a serial world champion including running the table of throwing events at one global championship. And for a period of time she was the oldest woman to complete a steeplechase. All of this IS documented interchangeably amongst the various sources. Trackinfo (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And as you are well aware this kind of sourcing is all WP:ROUTINE and doesn't meet WP:GNG. Your view that it is hard to find sources in eastern countries is very easily disproved since there are plenty of Russian sources on many Russian athletes. The problem isn't that there is a language barrier, it is that they simply don't exist. If there are feature articles written about them, find them and I will happily withdrawn the nomination. But as it stands this athlete isn't even close to meeting the requirements for an article. -DJSasso (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NTRACK prong 7. So the burden of proof that sources do not exist is on the nominator. Please prove you did an extensive search of Russian, print media that may not be on the internet - specify which Russian papers you checked, and on what dates. MATThematical (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read WP:NSPORTS. Even if someone meets them, they can still be put up for deletion and called upon to proove they meet WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While persons that meet WP:SPORTS can be put up for deletion, you are nominating a world record holder who likely has many sources of coverage in Russian that people outside of Russia will have difficulty obtaining. This is one of the exact situations that WP:NSPORT tries to avoid, a lot of care must be taken when nominating an article for AFD when the person meets NSPORT AND is either someone pre-internet or from a non-english speaking country, given that sources are very likely to exist for these types of people. --MATThematical (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She is a record holder for 75 year olds. It is very unlikely that that would generate much (if any) media coverage, when even junior record holders often do not get any press about their records. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to contest this part of WP:NTRACK I am fine with you doing so on WP:NTRACK page. However, your claim that most world junior record holders do not get any press coverage is bogus, and unsubstantiated. Every single junior record holder [at a distance contested in the olympics] has a wikipedia page already, and most of these pages [especially from english speaking countries] are several thousand words long and well sourced. --MATThematical (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NTRACK as mentioned above. Clearly WP:BEFORE wasn't done. Let's stop wasting everybody's time and close this. Smartyllama (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:BEFORE was done. I am making a call for actual sources since none could be found when doing a check. NTRACK specifically points out that just because a subject meets NTRACK that it doesn't mean it has to be kept. -DJSasso (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that talk did do WP:BEFORE, but that is not the issue. The issue is that because this athlete meets WP:NSPORT Russian print media must be checked, and talk has provided no evidence that they have checked print media. Sources are presumed to exist unless an extensive print media search shows otherwise. That is the whole point of WP:NSPORT, to prevent deletions of athletes who are either famous prior to the modern internet age or come from non-english speaking countries, without required due dillegence of the nominator. talk's nomination is in good faith, I just disagree with it until he does a Russian print media search as per WP:NSPORT. --MATThematical (talk) 05:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I agree with Smartyllama that this meets WP:NTRACK as mentioned above. Clearly notable. It is now time to close this AFD. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
'Speedy Keep - Clearly meets WP:NTRACK. Hmlarson (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca Schenker

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

Non-notable masters athlete who fails to meet WP:GNG. All of the sources on the article are just routine result lists. A search has not produced any "significant coverage" as required by WP:N. DJSasso (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. There must be reliable sources about the subject, and not just passing mentions, in order to satisfy notability. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to determine Most of the sources are in German, so it is difficult for me to evaluate their validity for news sources. It would be good to get someone who actually reads german and can conduct a proper German search for sources of this athlete involved in this AfD.MATThematical (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad issues

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

Tagged for original research since 2009 with no improvement. The individual lists impart no new information except for a completely contextless list of articles within. Most magazines do not have lists of this sort to begin with, and there is no precedent for having any of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I've always been a fan of the magazine, I'm going to have to go with Delete on this. The main article is mostly OR - most of the statements are using the actual magazines themselves as the sources in order to support the article author's own analysis. The little bits that are not, such as the excerpt from Harvey Kurtzman's obituary, are better suited in other articles, such as his own. The individual lists are just pure WP:FANCRUFT and WP:LISTCRUFT. Additionally, the information presented within them is completely unsourced. As the nominator said, its not a usual thing for Wikipedia to catalogue the contents of every issue of a magazine, and for a publication that is as long running, and still continuing, like Mad, this is going to be nothing but an ever increasing pile of cruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The base article isn't about issues per se, but rather a summary of the magazine itself. Lists of issue contents are pretty much unprecedented. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the bit about the Houghton Library may be worth merging to the main Mad (magazine) article. I'm not sure just how significant inclusion at the librarly actually is. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I love Mad, but this is all a bit too indiscriminate. There might be merit in having a list of individual issues that were especially iconic or controversial, but there's no need to have this here. I have no objection to this being sent to a fan wiki, if any of them need it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- The object seems to be to provide a contents list for the magazine. This is most unlikely to be useful and is certainly not encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per WP:SNOW~~ — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add @Diego Moya: List of Mad issues could be merged into Mad (magazine), at least the Art Spiegelman quote and info about Houghton Library. The rest of that article appears to be OR. The lists themselves are overkill, IMO, though the most notable issues should all be mentioned in the main article: e.g. Mad #1, Mad #4 (Superduperman!), and the debuts/finales of various contributors. Spoofs could be mentioned in the relevant articles with a link to Mad (magazine): e.g. Mad #389 "The Supremos (TV Satire)" is a spoof of The Sopranos and so should be mentioned there. The rest of the issues are completely unlinked and thus WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FANCRUFT as stated above and thus the lists should be deleted — Iadmc ♫^talk 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOG, if you prefer — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, MAD list all their issues here (though you need to keep pressing "Load more") — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong Keep as a shining example of the lists that the WP:CSC guideline considers valuable, which are short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. The guideline provides a laser-focus criterion for inclusion, making it clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The fact that the Deletes need to quote essays to justify their position is telling. Seriously guys, don't you have some lists of toy product catalogs to delete today, that you have to resort deleting the documented history of a worldwide popular publication? Diego (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You realize that the very section of the guideline that you are quoting specifically says that lists only meet that criteria if the "complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K)". This massive, multiple page list of material is certainly not that. The guideline also mentions that when it comes to exhaustive lists, "criteria for inclusion should factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence", and there seems to be pretty clear consensus here that this material is not encylopedic..64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The lists for each decade are about 8K each. Consensus needs to take into account the positions of all the previous editors that were codified into policy. A vote count based on essays that never got support to be changed into guidelines does not define a clear consensus. Diego (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that almost every entry is packed with blue links to Wikipedia articles on notable topics, so the list doubles as a navigation list, thus fulfilling not one but two of the purposes why list articles are created and kept, per the lists guideline, as a structured information source and navigation table. It works as a very effective list of topics in popular culture per decade, as reflected by the editorial criteria of a reliable source. Diego (talk) 13:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Diego Moya: What use does the info have then? "What If Batman Were Jewish?" bestows no information on the issue. How can you secondarily source anything in this article? Detailing the content of the magazine's article would be WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per Peterkingiron. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maithili Kabre

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

A handmade jewellery designer failed to pass WP:CREATIVE. I tried but can't find any significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising given we've not only established these publications willingly and and always publish such obvious PR, but the fact this article itself has nothing but focus in that, emphasizes it's a business listing, the history then also shows nothing else better or different, hence there's nothing genuine in our policies. SwisterTwister talk 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I got to know where I am wrong. Will make a draft before making it live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CapsicumWomen (talk • contribs) 05:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC) CapsicumWomen (talk) 05:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CapsicumWomen: You already created this article in draftspace (Draft:Maithili Kabre) and as well as in your sandbox before posting it in the mainspace but you did not bother to submit it for a review can I know why? GSS (talk|c|em) 06:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Because i am new to Wikipedia, I kept it in draft with no clue for the step ahead. I made a mistake there, should've done a research. Thank you --CapsicumWomen (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Further discussion about a potential merge can occur on an article talk page if desired. Closing this discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrassic Exxplosion Phillipic

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

Not notable self-produced release by the band. Never officially released and did not chart. Fails the criteria under WP:NALBUMS. No reviews. Karst (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Foxygen did make this album available to its fans in 2013, as is noted in the article. It comes up frequently in articles, interviews, and reviews (e.g., [7][8][9] ) and substantive information about this massive early effort is probably essential to a full understanding of the band's music. If we don't keep the separate article, deletion would still be undesirable; instead, some of its content ought to be merged (with a redirect) back into the main article, and maybe eventually into a new discography article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subjectivist view of the mental

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

Cant see anything to suggest this merits an article {[WP:GNG]]. Iwas temptd to speedy at as "insufficient context22, since it is perfectly incomprehensible. TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Scholar shows this phrase used exactly three times, and two are from the creator. The original paper was published in September 2016 (TOOSOON), and it doesn't look like it's been cited...at all...by anyone. TimothyJosephWood 18:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Not enough found to merit notability of this topic. ABF99 (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Tambourine

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

Non-notable TV show, fails WP:GNG, probably WP:TOOSOON to meet WP:TVSHOW.

All sources sources in the article are unreliable: WP:WikiProject Korea/Reliable sources#Considered Unreliable. I couldn't find any reliable sources.

Soompi typically has a link to their original source at the bottom of the article. In this case, it's to a Korean article on enews24, which is run by CJ E&M: http://enews24.tving.com/news/article.asp?nsID=1125302 I also believe this is a piece on Chosun announcing the new show: http://news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2016/11/10/2016111001174.html I'm not fluent in Korean, though, so I'm not 100% sure; I'm basing this on the general gist of the Google translations. -Mongoose22 (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest redirecting to Mnet (TV channel)#Entertainment. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources in Korean? Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Siuenti (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at sources cited by the Korean and Chinese language Wikipedias. It's just ratings and a handful articles. I don't read Korean so I can't say if it's in-depth, or if sources exist elsewhere. If someone thinks there are enough Korean sources to pass GNG, they should say what those sources are, per WP:MUSTBESOURCES. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[10][11]--Jerre Jiang 　Talk　 12:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soompi is unreliable per the WikiProject Korea list I linked to. Kpopfighting, which I don't know anything about to say whether it's reliable or not, has only three stories. Each is only a few paragraphs long and seems to focus on people who have appeared on the show, not the show itself. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[12]--Jerre Jiang 　Talk　 09:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:TVSHOW. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaktivedanta Vidyapitha

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

Does not establish notability and fails WP:NSCHOOL. Vasemmistolainen (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not convincing our standards for this and overall unconvincing. SwisterTwister talk 02:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy. Already deleted by the King of nukes| (non-admin closure) Lourdes 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lupendra Madavi

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

Non-notable person, autobiography, resume. Was nom'd for speedy but an IP editor removed the tag. Drm310 (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge University Russian Society

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

No evidence of notability & no independent sources Cabayi (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" - The page has been updated to include various references about the society and information about its background at Cambridge University, all records are available at the proctors office in Cambridge University and the University Library. Ilyacambridge (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Keep"~~ - Thank you for your help. Yes, more references have been added about the society, its appearance in the news, its links within the university and some of the archives. If more is necessary please let me know. There is currently no information about the society on wikipedia and it would be beneficial to start this article and add to it as more research is done about its history. Ilyacambridge (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplicate vote stricken. clpo13_(talk) 17:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you want to reinforce the notability of the subject you will need to give reliable sources such as newspapers and articles from the archives. References to youtube and social media are just not going to cut it. Most university societies do not have have articles because they cannot show their notability. Think to yourself, has this society had any impact outside of the university environment.Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I can't help but wonder if we are not dealing with socks playing with WP:POINT, given what's happening at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oxford University Russian Society.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant mentions in Google Books or Scholar. No quality (independent, reliable, in-depth) sources found so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Keep"~~ Thank you for your concern. And the "socks" being what exactly? Russian Culture and history within the top two universities of the United Kingdom? The society is a University society that has no political affiliation. There is no significant Google Books or Scholar references because it is, again, a university society not a business or money making organisation. The society is one of the biggest in Cambridge and has had some incredible people visit for talks, artists, musicians, authors, journalists etc. Please see the added references. Ilyacambridge (talk) 11:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ilyacambridge: users can only submit one keep or delete vote on an article deletion discussion. Any number of comments can be made, however. clpo13_(talk) 17:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The modern reincarnation of the society doesn't appear in significant references. The Slavonic Society maybe notable, but I cannot find any references to show this. Aloneinthewild (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any independent reference for the assertion that Nabokov founded the Slavonic Society. Has anyone come across such a source? --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as the solution for not having independent notability in substance. SwisterTwister talk 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HRH Prince Ebrahim

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

The Gambia is a republic and i'm not convinced this subject is notable enought to warrant inclusion. Uhooep (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not a real royal. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doctor Who directors

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

Pointless article as all information is provided elsewhere Cindlevet (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CFORK, the directors are listed with episodes and related articles. See no reason for seperate article again -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Also Not notable, and the list does not even contain any sources. - AffeL (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant fork Spiderone 09:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly sourced listcruft. This stuff is already covered in sufficient detail in other articles, and I don't think the title would be a useful redirect. Reyk _YO! 08:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Game of Thrones directors (2nd nomination), many of these votes are merely to make a WP:POINT for the votes against them at the aforementioned deletion article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Unlike other deleted lists of this kind, I think this does have some potential, provided the article is improved. I'm sure plenty of sources exist discussing the work of directors such as Waris Hussein and Paddy Russell in relation to this series, and the work of directors such as Ben Wheatley on the modern series. However as it stands, it is as the delete !votes say above, unsourced listcruft. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we should probably have a look at List of Doctor Who producers, List of Doctor Who script editors and List of Doctor Who composers. Maybe the first two could be combined with this one some how to form a Doctor Who crew members (or similar) page, and maybe List of Doctor Who composers could be combined with List of music featured on Doctor Who to form a Music of Doctor Who article. Simply listing the number of episodes and the length of their tenure is not very encylopedic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned, its an unecessary fork, as the various episode lists for the series already includes the directors. The only information here, really, that can't easily be found elsewhere is that last column of showing how long its been since they directed their first episode, which is pure, useless trivia. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the second-to-last column? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The notes column contains much trivia as well. Anything actually notable should be noted on the director's article or the main article. I don't think this list offers much that isn't or can't be appropriately covered elsewhere -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I'm the same individual as the anonymous IP above) - The second to last column is largely empty, and the vast majority of the information that is there is, as I said, readily found elsewhere, either on the main Episode lists, or on the expanded pages of the episodes/serials themselves. It is also, as already noted, mostly just trivia. 75.82.28.71 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priscilla Gilman

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

Somewhat promotional article not based on reliable secondary sources. A Google News search for coverage of Gilman is complicated by the numerous false positives due to articles written by Gilman herself; the best I found was this piece of local news (it originally appeared "in the New York edition" of the NYT), plus this book review that provides quotes, but scant details about either Gilman or her work. I don't think that's enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Removing all content without reliable sources would turn the article into a stub of one or two sentences. Huon (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. clpo13_(talk) 16:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although I don't feel strongly about it. This wedding announcement in the New York Times is another source. I agree that the Google News search yields a lot of hits....it really yields lots and lots of hits, which says something. --do ncr am 23:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As doncram said, she and her book have lots of coverage. Article needs sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the source listed above is a local announcement anyone can ask and pay for, especially for localized, and she's not significantly held in libraries with a high of only a few, along with barely 2 in 1 library; nothing else better is available and none of this amounts to actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 07:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is emphatically not true that "anyone can pay and ask for" a wedding announcement in the New York Times.In days of yore, these announcements were restricted to the social register. In our slightly more democratic age, any couple can pitch the Times in what is now a highly selective process. The rich, famous, and well-connected are still selected, but so are up-and-comers form non-notable families (20-somethings with Rhodes scholarships or appellate court clerkships), and some people with particularly interesting backstories are also selected. We all need to try not to make assertions where we do not know the facts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the announcements are useful in an article because the Times fact checks them so carefully. But they are a slender reed on which to support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Took a 2nd look at Gilman. Her first book get widespread attention, not only reviews, but excerpted published in major media (like Newsweek). She is a widely published literary critic, but also here: [13] is a long interview with her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory (talk · contribs) above - certainly a notable enough author for a page. Garchy (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Userfy to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Note to the creator: Please do familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines as pointed out. Otherwise the next time you create such an article, it will most likely be deleted. So Why 17:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furies: Erinyes.

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

I suggest first that this page should be merged into Erinyes. Failing that, it should be deleted. I prodded it a while back; in response, the editor stated on the talk page: " Furies: Erinyes, is a project that studies the details of Virgil's use of the Furies, as characters, in his available writings, with a comparison to the use of the Furies, as characters, by his contemporaries, fore-runners and other Classical and later authors." I waited to see if the editor would update the page to make this clearer but it is still more like a draft for a dissertation than an encyclopaedic entry. — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 12:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the author. I've been busy and unable to get back to edit the User page Furies: Erinyes. I do intend to finish the article and when finished I will be please for it to remain as a single page or for it to be merged, in some way, with another page. The details that I'm looking for are time consuming to find. I will be happy to finish it, given a bit of time, before any final decisions are made. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUSTER1965 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FUSTER1965, the article you created is not a "user page", but rather is in the encyclopedia's "mainspace" (i.e part of the encyclopedia proper, see WP:MAINSPACE). To see how to create a user page, you should read: Wikipedia:User pages. Paul August ☎ 15:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move: I believe that FUSTER1965 intended this to be a user page, but does not understand how to create one. So I suggest that this be moved to User:FUSTER1965/Furies: Erinyes. Paul August ☎ 15:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with moving, but I want to make sure that FUSTER1965 is aware that Wikipedia does not accept original research on Wikipedia. This means that unless this content has already been explicitly stated elsewhere by a reliable source, it shouldn't be included on Wikipedia. And by explicit I mean that the source has to state "Homer's description of the Cyclops' behaviour, provides an element of confirmation that Hesiod writes about the Furies with the Cyclops - Æschylus (see below) can be deemed to have a similar opinion - in mind", at least in its own words. Anything that you came up with would be considered original research.The quality of your research isn't really something that would be in question - it's just that Wikipedia can only contain research that has been discussed by vetted outlets/people. I also have to share in Iadmc's concerns that this is more of a dissertation than Wikipedia content, especially given its tone (ie, that it's written like a research paper). I just want to caution you that even if this is moved to your draftspace that it would still have to comply with Wikipedia conventions regardless of where you post it. I've written an essay about this here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)

Well, as Erinyes is on exactly the same subject, is better written, better cited, and illustrated, this is a new content fork and as such should be deleted. However, if respected editors believe that the article's creator can make use of the material to make useful additions to Erinyes then userfying could be an appropriate choice. The current text is nearly all quotations, labelled "Notes, Line:", with an initial paragraph which does not seem to add anything to the existing article, and there is off-topic essay-like comparison with the Fates. So personally I'd just delete, but I'm happy to go along with what people feel would be best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was concerned that it might not have any new info. I'll leave it up to you guys - I haven't done a really indepth comparison of the two articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment from nom—I'd support userfying and letting the editor work on it to see if it could eventually be used on Wikipedia in some way. However, I suggest the editor familiarize themself with the policies, guidelines and essays linked on their own talk page and Tokyogirl79's excellent essay on encyclopaedic writing vs academic writing: here — Iadmc ♫^talk 18:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, let's Userfy, as I didn't vote earlier. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not useful as an article. I'd be ok with userfying, but the author does not seem to understand how Wikipedia works and that we don't do OR. Sandstein 08:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings entirely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. I haven't checked this article against Erinyes, but it's possible that some of the information here (provided it isn't WP:OR) could be usefully added to that and/or elsewhere. IMO Furies: Erinyes. should not be a standalone article, and needs to go - it's a WP:FORK. Narky Blert (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also remark that this article is heavily overlinked. Narky Blert (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan Embassy In Turkmenistan

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

Not a notable embassy; lacks coverage in reliable sources. It does not help that we don't have an article on Afghanistan–Turkmenistan relations. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkmenistan-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete there is no inherent notability of embassies. All the article does is confirm it exists. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Diplomatic missions in themselves aren't notable; as above, it merely notes its address. Mélencron (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The sources are reliable and verifiable, just not enough to establish significant coverage. However, WP:ARTIST #4 is an alternate criterion for notability, and it does not appear to have resolved either way in this discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Lynch (artist)

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

Non-notable artist. Sources provided are both primary. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. The author has a COI Flat Out (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable artist; vanity/promotional page. Quis separabit? 23:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the national museum collection which is why I accepted. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists. But that in and of itself doesn't mean the "author has a COI"? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately they created or tried to create many articles on Australian visual artists specifically from Arts Project Australia a single suburban organization they they also created a draft for. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Editor COI is not grounds for deletion. Notability and verifiability of the article content is. And this content seems oaky. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete Two is not several ~~The articles 'Collections' section alone meets WP:ARTIST element #4.~~ Gab4gab (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment like I said at WP:Articles for deletion/Brigid Hanrahan and WP:Articles for deletion/Dorothy Berry, I am concerned about the lack of critical reception. Even for artist who technically meet some of the secondary notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, for example being represented in a collection, we still need someone else to write something we can base an article on. I would really like to see some in-depth reviews from reliable, independent sources, and artshub is not an independent source.Mduvekot (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia.

Note that the collection section claims "Lynch’s work is represented in private collections and in the National Gallery of Australia collection and the Stuart Purves Collection". The only part verified (primary source) is that she was one small part of a Stuart Purves collection and that was an exhibition for Australian Galleries [14] ([15]). duffbeerforme (talk) 07:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find this and two others through an NGA collection search for Anne Lynch. I think that's a good source for perm collection. Gab4gab (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The permanent collection requirement says several, that is more than 2, and I see no evidence that is met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and develop~~. This artist is well known in the Outsider art circuit, having shown at Phillis Kind Gallery in NYC, which is the one of the most (if not the most) significant gallery in the U.S. showing Outsider art. I've looked online and there is coverage of her, enough so that the article ~~can be~~. is improved. Please be patient before deleting - ~~I'll work on improving this article but today is a travel day for me, so my time is momentarily limited.~~ Marginalized outsider, vernacular artists with disabilities do not receive equal press and secondary source coverage as do artists in the mainstream who work in the culture industry of commercial galleries and museums. Often their presence and contributions are recorded via oral histories and visual culture, rather than "THE Normative Press. Please consider context.Netherzone (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per lack of reliable sources, as described above. Just to address some of the comments, while it is true that disabled or unorthodox artists like Lynch can sometimes find it harder to get coverage, verifiability is still a non-negotiable requirement for an article here. This isn't intended to punish people like Lynch, nor is it a comment on the worthiness or otherwise of her art, but rather to acknowledge that it is impossible to write a neutral and comprehensive biography without reliable source material. In this particular case, the sources provided are either just trivial mentions in articles on other topics, or are on websites that have a vested interest in increasing Lynch's profile because they are selling her works. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jalebi (video game)

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

Could almost be A7ed, no credible indication of importance. Did some searching and couldn't really find any sources talking about this. Does not seem to be notable. Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dialectric (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, especially in Indian languages, please {{ping}} me. czar 10:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this articles is little bit important. As this is quite famous among Foreign Srilankan kids. --Shriheeran (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The board game it is based on might be, but this article is about a little known app. Insert CleverPhrase Here 02:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Please note that the person from Srilanka must have been referring to the Android App itself, for there is no such board game exist. I can assure you for I have been living in India for 50 years and having proficiency in diverse regional languages. Bilingual2000 (talk) 05:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NVG. Sites such as press releases ([16] and [17]) do not establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Ravi

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted earlier. Non notable actor/director/editor of non notable entities. Fails WP:FILM. Jupitus Smart 10:55, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it already. While the nominator wrongly quotes FILM as a guideline for deletion (the appropriate guidelines could have been GNG or BASIC or NACTOR or ARTIST or even AUTHOR), this is a classic case of a subject who has considerable sources available on Google but none reliable or with the depth required to qualify on either GNG or SNG. Lourdes 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And to help any administrator closing this Afd, I would suggest a delete in lines with WP:BIODEL. Thanks. Lourdes 05:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaise Jose

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted earlier. Seems to have added an exposition of Malayalam references to swindle editors, with no mention of the actor, but only of the movies. Jupitus Smart 11:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is having valid references and I really request to thoroughly check all references before placing a deletion nomination.Rajeshbieee (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin User:Rajeshbieee created and is the primary, if not only contributor to this article. Jupitus Smart 09:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rauf Klasra

AfDs for this article:

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

Per cited sources, the subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It fails to pass the notability. Justice007 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject hosts a very well known show in his country.[18]. His talk shows have gained critical attention and controversy. You should consider JOURNALIST#4, the subject would qualify on notability. Lourdes 17:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Mir

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

Effectively unsourced (external links are no sources).

Reads as self-promo or a special written promo-piece (I received a contract ; Also for ProSieben, Mir told me about ) The Banner talk 04:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced Biography of a Living Person. That's really all I need to say, because that's a reason for deletion all by itself. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Exemplo347 and the nominator have policy wrong, this is AfD, and WP:BEFORE applies. It's fairly clear through a simple search on this persons name that there are a number of articles with this model as their topic in German magazines. You want to delete it for being unsourced, try WP:BLPPROD, or better yet, fix the article. Note that there is a DE.WIKI article on the subject. --joe decker ^talk 04:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I looked at the news available and they were simply 2 pages of entertainment news, nothing substantial and they seemed to be focused as social media, hence not substance and nothing for an acceptable article (magazines yes, but not convincing ones). What's currently here is simply for some achievements as a model such as the contestant show, nothing else significant. Also, signs show the GermanWiki is in fact not maintaining itself at all now so they are not an automatic defense. SwisterTwister talk 07:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator is known for listing articles never doing WP:BEFORE. Person meets WP:GNG: [19] (Bild), [20] (Aachener Zeitung), [21] (Amica (magazine)), [22] (Express (Cologne newspaper)). Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Aha, you are back to your revenge-commenting. You should have applied WP:BEFORE on your own articles before publishing... The Banner talk 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is off topic here. Why posting everywhere where you can how bad I am? Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 10:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can we just stop the bantering? Sander admittively the only reason you voted here in the first place was because the Banner nominated the article. You're just trying to spite him and start conflict.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TheGracefulSlick: The point is The Banner nominates already for months on a regular basis articles of me, that are always (speedy) kept for not doing WP:BEFORE. And so it's logic I take a look at other articles he nominates to see if there is a trend. And soI told him that at his talk page. After some search where I found easily realible sources I can better reply to this AfD as it might help the discussion. Sander.v.Ginkel ^(Talk) 15:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        This is more a desperate and disruptive revenge-campaign. The Banner talk 18:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sander.v.Ginkel and aren't you the same user who will literally have thousands of articles deleted because of poor diligence and BLP violations so who are you to criticize him? If you were unwilling to put any effort into your content, why should other editors? That's laziness. Please stick to the Afd if you are continuing a discussion here. Also, consider having some pride in your work; like I always say, quality over quantity.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a forum to discuss editor conduct. If those involved would like to continue such a discussion, do so somewhere else. TimothyJosephWood 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Promo article with no real significance coming from sources to turn into a worthwhile piece for the encyclopedia.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 07:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - News search yields 7k results. Basically all of them are non-English, but I have a hard time believing that all seven thousand of them are unreliable news outlets. The German version has more than a dozen sources, and although it looks like the article was deleted in 2011, it looks like it was actually restored two months later following further discussion. TimothyJosephWood 18:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Family Enterprises

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

Suspect that this organisation does not actually exist. Whilst there is plenty of information on its "subsidiaries" (and we have articles on all of them), there seems to be no reliable evidence to suggest that this holding company is a real organisation. The best source available is this Investopedia artilce, which appears to be largely cribbed from the Wikipedia page and was written by a sixteen-year-old contributor. The term is also used, sort of, at this awards page, but here it clear it refers to S.C. Johnson & Sons. The same seems to be true in other instances of the term "Johnson Family Enterprises" online.

See also the comments on the article talkpage by User:Wax86, who claims to represent the company. ~~Whilst Wax86's identity has not been confirmed,~~ I'm inclined to believe them based on my own checks. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Yunshui, Wax86's identity has been verified via e-mail per OTRS ticket:2017011210012798. Mike1901 (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ Delete ~~with S. C. Johnson & Son per WP:Before~~. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is that the subject, Johnson Family Enterprises, does not exist as it relates to SC Johnson so having a redirect page to the SC Johnson article seems misleading and/or confusing. Wax86 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to make sure I adequately address the question concerning proof. As it was mentioned, I cannot prove a negative but here are some sources that support that the company is family-owned and operated as an independent company:

David Barboza (August 22, 1999) “At Johnson Wax, A Family Passes On Its Heirloom; Father Divides a Business To Keep the Children United”. The New York Times.

Del Jones (December 4, 2002) “Johnson family legacy finds layers of love, loss: 5th generation taking reins at $7B company”. USA Today

CBS News (October 16, 2016) “A family history at SC Johnson”. CBS Sunday Morning

Ellen Byron (March 10, 2016) “How Fisk Johnson Works to Keep the Shine on Family Business”. The Wall Street Journal.

Casillas, Jose C., Francisco J Acedo and Ana M. Moreno. International Entrepreneurship in Family Businesses. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008. (pp. 279-286)Wax86 (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the lack of sources to support the content it seems a likely hoax. If not, the lack of coverage by independent reliable sources means it fails general notability and WP:ORG. Gab4gab (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it is not a hoax. In 2006 (the year I became a wikipedian and the year I created this article) I do not recall what source made me feel that this was a valid subject for an international encyclopedia.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was quite surprised when I realised you were the original author. Just to be clear, I don't for a moment think this was a deliberately fabricated article; merely that it seems to have been created by mistake. No accusation of impropriety intended. Yunshui ^雲 _水 18:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my indelicate use of the term hoax. Gab4gab (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am SC Johnson's archivist and historian and an established authority on the company's history. I feel deletion is the only course of action given the lack of reliable sources that provide verifiability (WP:V) of the existence of Johnson Family Enterprises as well as support its notability. (WP:GNG, WP:ORG) Wax86 (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Wax86 (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article provides no evidence that such a company exists, and Google finds very little. There is this page, but it appears neither independent not reliable. Maproom (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the very nature of a family business holding company precludes the existence of reliable sources that discuss it in detail. Being privately held grants privacy. John from Idegon (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source material. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 22:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Delete. per WP:G5 - deleted by Bbb23. (non-admin closure) Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me!} 20:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ugaas Yaasiin Ugaas Cabdiraxmaan

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

Lacks verifiability, no evidence or references provided and the chieftain doesn't seem to be notable. No English sources mention the chieftain. Buraomagnificent (talk) 13:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "No English sources mention the chieftain.", there doesn't have to be ie. "Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language.". Coolabahapple (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still not notable and no sources added. The content is all made up. Buraomagnificent (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whether sources are in English or not, they are still required in some form. As it stands, the reader can't tell if this is a real traditional leader or a complete hoax. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryka Aoki

AfDs for this article:

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

First nomination resulted in deletion. I don't think this iteration provides any more evidence of notability. Owen (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first AfD was a farce with no one participating in it except the nominator. It probably should have been relisted. That aside, there is both critical response to Aoki's work, so we can say she passes WP:CREATIVE with reviews and biographies on her, so she also passes GNG. 1) Lambda Literary Review, Columbus Dispatch Review (behind paywall), 3) there is also a biography on her and a review of her work in Guide To Literary Masters & Their Works (behind paywall), 4) She is part of this Guardian article, her work is part of a book noted by the Advocate, and short bio by Curve behind paywall. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Hmlarson (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seem to be reliable sources addressing this person; I'd say this is notable.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Captain (inline hockey)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support deleting but be aware that there's a whole bunch of these for various sports listed at Captain (sports). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever an inline hockey captain does is clearly just a clone of Captain (ice hockey), from which the sport derived. So I'm going to take the liberty of listing this particular roller hockey Afd at the ice hockey deletion page, accordingly. Others should not be added there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CFORK of Inline hockey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajf773 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. As User:Ajf773 noted it's a WP:CFORK, although I believe of Captain (ice hockey) like User:Shawn in Montreal mentioned. Ultimately, this article adds no value to merge to either existing articles. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Nomination withdrawn due to pages needing to be separately nominated and tagged. (non-admin closure) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roller Hockey International teams

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this user has tried to wipe inline hockey out of existence on Wikipedia. RHI was a nationally covered league on prime time for a number of years. The teams in this league were covered extensively in the media. A quick search easily shows there was all kinds of coverage for most if not all of these teams. These mass deletion nominations are going to cause a huge amount of work to clean up. This league was the top level inline league in the world during the time the sport was a huge craze. I would also point out that most of theses were not created by a single user. -DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- THese articles have been uncited for over 7 years... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I forget the particular page that explains that Afd is not for cleanup. WP:BEFORE C1 indicates if articles can be cleaned up then they are not Afd candidates. And section D indicates that it is up to the nominator to do a good faith look for sources for anything they nominate. At the rate these articles have been thrown up, I am having a hard time believing you have done a search through appropriate news archives for sources (since most of these teams pre-date high internet usage.) Though even a quick google search turns up stories on a number of these. I would also point out Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Just because another editor has not yet come along to take on the work of sourcing them better does not mean they cannot be sourced. We are supposed to judge AfDs on how the pages can be, not only on how they are. -DJSasso (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, procedurally if nothing else. The articles have not been tagged for Afd. This is not the way to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Espn coverage easily meets GNG, obviously no attempt to even check. This NY Times article discusses the sports decline, but highlights what a big deal the sport was; featured at the Barcelona Olympics, national tv coverage, etc. And to be frank, I am sick and tired of this "large swath" nonsense. The list creator created 3 articles, and the contained articles have multiple creators, some of whom are still active. I don't know who it persuades, but it is clearly inappropriate conduct.18abruce (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Park View Office Tower

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

Not notable building Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable building. Importance asserted: "the first green building in Central Asia", in fact! --do ncr am 18:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It attained a green certification; buildings do that all the time (and many more will after this one in the region). Remove that and you have yet another office building with the same facilities as most office buildings have. Nate • (chatter) 03:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be very appropriate for the article to define what is meant by "green", to contrast vs. many pre-historic huts, historic homes made of natural materials of this region, etc. So do explain that it is the first new construction LEEDS-certified building of any kind, or building of some type, and be precise about the region. It is appropriate to tag the article to ask for more precision. Being the first Green building in Central Asia still sounds like quite a strong assertion of notability, and Mrschimpf's comment seems to confirm that details are available. --do ncr am 05:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 12 January 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 January 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The source says it "received a “very good” BREEAM certificate". Trouble is, it is the third out of five passing grades ("outstanding" and "excellent" are better), and is defined as "top 25% of UK new non-domestic buildings (advanced good practice)".[23] That does not seem remarkable to me. I'd change my mind if more coverage could be found. GregorB (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. GregorB (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just being the first green building in asia (kazakstan isnt really asia but..) probably isnt enough for notability but it has recieved quite a decent amount of coverage in kazak and russian national sources, a good example being this forbes article: [24], and here are a few more [25] [26], IBM russia also have their hq in the new building. I think it passes WP:GNG, and this could be more proven if someone could check for russian/kazak sources in the appropriate languages as this would further assert my point. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Coleshill

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

Local politician that hasn't received sufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline or the politician-specific guideline. Pichpich (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm of two minds about this. The standard for city councillors to pass WP:NPOL, just for the fact of serving as city councillors, is that the city whose council they served on is a global city — which Glasgow technically is, but it's in the "Gamma" (i.e. lowest) rank of that set alongside places such as Valencia, San Jose, Marseille, Cincinnatti, Guadalajara, Tallinn, Vilnius, Milwaukee and Ljubljana where by and large there isn't a concerted effort actually being undertaken to actually get most of the city councillors into Wikipedia the way there is for the likes of New York City and San Francisco and London and Toronto. So it would be enough if there were more substance and sourcing being shown than there actually is — but as written, this only just barely says anything more than "he exists", and is parked on a single source rather than enough sourcing to actually clear WP:GNG. Accordingly, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to British media coverage than I've got can actually WP:HEY it up to a keepable standard — but for the moment, I have to go with delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something more substantial than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per [27] [28], he was Argyll and Bute's original Lib Dem MP candidate in 2001 before he stepped down, which is at least something more than councillor. However, WP:NPOL says that unelected candidates are not guaranteed notability, and I'm struggling to find much else on this fellow. "Pepper" @ 04:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The basis of WP:POLITICIAN is that there is a presumption that (sufficient) coverage exists about the subject for a particular office. As a collective, we assume that sufficient coverage exists for individuals who hold national or sub-national office. We also presume that substantive coverage exists for big-city mayors (especially those who are independently elected). I do not think the same presumption exists for city councilmembers (and I think that the global cities distinction for city councilmembers is not a useful criteria). As Bearcat recently wrote, WP:NPOL (for elected officials, when coverage is not presumed) "is achieved in one of two ways: either the coverage nationalizes into sources far beyond the geographic range in which such coverage is merely expected, and/or the local coverage volumizes to the point where a much more substantial article can be written." In this case, it does not appear there is either the volume of substantive coverage, nor does there appear an expansion of geographic scope of coverage. ---Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A substantially unreferenced biography (other than the election result which I have added) on a local councillor and unsuccessful parliamentary candidate. (See also Glasgow_City_Council_election,_2012#Ward_7:_Langside.) Media searches return in-role mentions from the subject's time on Glasgow Council, but he does not meet the WP:POLITICIAN criteria and I am not seeing the substantial coverage which would be needed were he to have broader WP:BASIC notability for an article. AllyD (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Looked plausible, so I set out to source it. Found very little. Articles that cmae up on a Proquest News Archive search were few, and all routine. Tried searching for his academic career, but found only a single chapter in a book on Devolution. Also, source #1 is not really about about Colesville, but about the fact that the politician he replaces had been the "longest serving politicla leadder in the UK" at the time he stepped down.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete , consensus seems to be that WP:ONEEVENT applies, especially given that the corresponding article on Norwegian Wikipedia was also deleted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hanne Tolg

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

Notable for One Event. The article for document.no already contains a section about this person that duplicates this article almost word-for-word. Per the One Event guidelines, this article should be turned into a redirect to the appropriate section of the article for her employer. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added the section on Hanne Tolg in the document.no page after first creating the Hanne Tolg page. And, yes, the wording is similar and should be adjusted. I would favor moving the discussion from the document.no page to the Hanne Tolg page rather than deleting the Hanne Tolg page. Hanne Tolg is a notable writer in Norway; in 2016 she topped the list of shared news stories on two dates (Dec 24 and May 27) Storyboard 2016 This makes her one of the most-read/most-shared Norwegian journalists, so this is not a one-event article. Also, the campaign against her did not stop when she resigned, it is ongoing. Do a search on her name to find it. Geringe (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did many searches, and yes, the debate might be ongoing but it still counts as One Event Exemplo347 (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the campaign/debate being one event. Anyway, I've revised the text on the document.no page, duplicate wordings have been removed and a link to the Hanne Tolg page is there instead. Also, I've added information about rankings of her articles Geringe (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may have been a bit premature - that text will probably need to be re-added if this article does not survive this AfD discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be reinserted. However, I believe Hanne Tolg is a notable person and that her article should remain in Wikipedia. Geringe (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you wrote the article in the first place it's only natural that you believe that. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The campaign against Hanne Tolg is core to the freedom-of-speech detbae in our increasingly internet-based societies. Also Hanne Tolg is one of the most-read political commentators in Norway today, as shown by the provided statistics. As such, this is not a 'one-event' article. Howcome (talk) 11:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the things that are core to this debate are Wikipedia's policies. It's not a freedom-of-speech issue here - it's Wikipedia's policy that people who are only notable (not famous, not popular, but notable) for one event should, where possible, be included in a more appropriate pre-existing article. Please don't try to muddy things by making it about anything other than the issue I raised in the nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil and assume good faith. My comment addressed your claim of being a "one-issue" article and there's no need to attach "muddy" to it. Howcome (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well let's agree to disagree that a simple word like "muddy" is somehow uncivil and move on. If you could explain, strictly by sticking to matters of Wikipedia's policies, why the subject of this article does not fall under WP:ONEEVENT then please feel free. This discussion is about this article and Wikipedia's policies - it's not about any other external issues. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been extended since the WP:ONEEVENT nomination was filed. In addition to the campaign incident, I have added reference to Storyboard's statistics. In these, one can see that Hanne Tolg tops the lists of articles shared on two separate days in 2016, making her a notable writer in Norway. Geringe (talk) 11:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a single sentence, linking to those stats - like I said before, popularity and notability aren't the same thing. If anything, all those stats prove are that her articles were popular on those specific dates. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the short length of the paragraph is your remaining issue, this can easily be fixed through normal editing. Remember, deletion is a last-resort meassure as per the guidelines Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion Geringe (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:ONEEVENT is the issue with this article. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A nearly identical article with the same references on no.wikipedia.org is also currently up for deletion. I think that if that is deleted, which is probably likely, then we have our answer. MB 02:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been keeping an eye on that one (thanks to a popular, search-engine-based machine translation service!) and it seems like the arguments are pretty similar - even down to the same two people !voting Keep. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Norwegian-language version of this article has been deleted, see here for info. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 10:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable blogger. The subject of this article was already found to be not notable and the article was deleted on the Norwegian Wikipedia (with its considerably lower notability requirements and greater knowledge of Norwegian topics); as the closing admin at the Norwegian Wikipedia noted, no established editors supported keeping the article. Also note that the article seems quite biased in its presention of the conflict with her former employer, which constitutes the bulk of the article, and that the only proper third party source included, an article titled North Wales fire service employee quits amid investigation into alleged posts on far-right website in the North Wales Daily Post local newspaper, doesn't even mention her by name. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clear 1E case, that even the no.wp deleted the article is telling. Sandstein 17:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scared to Be Lonely

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

Fails WP:NSONG and is WP:TOOSOON - not yet released; no indication when it will appear. Redirect to Garrix. Karst (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW Keep - The song exists and I have recently heard on the radio that it will be played tomorrow. In light of this new information, I've changed my !vote to SNOW keep Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - per above, the song will be released on the 27th. Notable per wide coverage (for a soon-to-be released song). - TheMagnificentist 13:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - it is being played on popular radio stations and is therefore notable Patient Zero^talk 13:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep May have been created earlier than necessary - however it is released now, so it's best to keep it. TheKaphox T 17:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usercart

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

This appears to me to fail a number of criteria for inclusion as a Wikipedia article:

WP:NSOFTWARE
WP:CORPDEPTH for the corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written
WP:GNG for the both the software and corporate entity that wrote or allowed for the software to be written

This page has been deleted a number of times:

15:52, January 18, 2017 Ritchie333 deleted page Usercart (A7: Article about a website, blog, web forum, webcomic, podcast, browser game, or similar web content, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
16:09, December 15, 2015 Jimfbleak deleted page Usercart (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion: posted by the company, spam)
00:08, January 9, 2009 Rjd0060 deleted page Usercart (Deleted because expired WP:PROD; Reason given: Non notable software.)
19:24, November 10, 2008 Anthony Appleyard deleted page Usercart (G11: Blatant advertising)

There has not yet been a formal deletion discussion. I guess the article could be SALT-d, but I think it should be discussed before that, even if only to allow future WP:G4 speedy deletion.
As always, please do tell my why I am wrong about this, or about anything at all about my Wikipedia edits. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find sources indicating notability. The single-purpose account that created the article and has been adding links to other sections claims in this edit that the company has a turnover of 1.6 million pounds, and is one of the most popular ecommerce engines in the UK, both claims without a source. I can only find this link about a defunct company. The user titled a link to the product's contact page as "Notable software citation", which looks like an attempt to mislead. Unless sources can be found, a clear-cut case of non-notability. Greenman (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This needs independent sources but has none. - MrOllie (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article creator sent me a note that said a piece of software you download and put on a web server is not technically "web content" as defined under the strict rules of WP:CSD#A7, and while that may be a point, at best that'll just mean we end up here instead. Anyway, a complete blank under news and book sources, and absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever. I'm curious what does this software give me that a typical Wordpress shopping cart plugin doesn't? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As impressive as it is that they had the creativity to claim 11k downloads on their website, and then cleverly cite their own site as "Notable Software Citation", and claim to be one of the most downloaded such programs in the UK (as if geography is important), it's probably more impressive that an open web search only returns about 300 results of any type. I'm pretty sure nearly any word-letter combination beats that. For science: "Antelope Y" gets 15k results, "Beard R" 68k, "Unemployment S" 17k, and "Backspace L" 1k (thanks random word generator). TimothyJosephWood 19:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - unnotable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I have no idea why the nom though it was a good idea to remove my speedy delete tag from the article and instead bring it here to waste everyone's time, but in any case here is my vote. Shameless advertising of an unnotable subject. Insert CleverPhrase Here 07:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions on the Cancellation of WITS Academy

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

Most of the material in this article is unsourced, We certainly do not need a standalone article on this topic, as what little info is relevant can be added to the main WITS Academy page. Honestly though, this article seems to balance itself on a couple of tweets... talk about flaky sourcing. Insert CleverPhrase Here 10:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was created in conjunction with a series of vandalistic edits, each one adding several sports-team navboxes to an article on a children's television program. Frankly, the instant article probably could have been "G3" speedy-deleted as blatant vandalism and/or hoax. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under WP:G3 – this was created by what appears to be a vandalism-only account (that I'm shocked hasn't already been blocked as a vandalism-only account!). Anyway, not an independently notable topic – it would belong at WITS Academy if sourcing could be found for it (which it won't be...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:CSD#G3/WP:HOAX: TorontoON (talk · contribs) is pretty obviously a sockpuppet of HornetsMike (talk · contribs) who made the same kinds of edits to WITS Academy before being blocked earlier this month. --Closeapple (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reported as sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HornetMike --Closeapple (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Oh God no; WP:FANCRUFT. Whatever the socking nonsense going on, this is complete garbage. As it is, it's a kid's TV show. Those get cancelled all the time, and it's boilerplate for the cast and crew to say 'we're sad to see it go' at this point. I've removed the sports team rubbish at the very least. Nate • (chatter) 00:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samad mir

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

Recreation of an article Samad Mir salted by @RHaworth:. Probably useful to salt "Samad mir" and "samad mir" as well. Domdeparis (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am grand son of poet samad mir. I solemnly affirm that all the facts written are absolutely correct. I have made two Android apps on samad mir available in play store. My father who was samad mir's eldest son, is the source of information giving in this article. All facts are correct.( Dr Shakeel Ahmad Mir grand son of poet samad mir nambalhar Kashmir mobile +919906034025) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakeel513 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The initial draft was badly sourced to blogs and wikis (and I assume the salted version was even worse), but plenty of independent book sources describe Mir as having been a significant poet. I've added a couple of sources to the article. --McGeddon (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per McGeddon and this book. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 12:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Although editors agree a rename is needed. Sandstein 05:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear renaissance in the United States

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

This seems to be an article about an event that never came to pass, with over half of its text describing various reasons that it didn't happen. Propose deletion or merging as an example under wiktionary:spurious Spaig (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Rename Most of the content seems well sourced and neutrally written, but the title is very problematic, as the OP notes. Most of the content could be salvaged either by merging it or renaming it something like History of American Nuclear Power in the 21st Century. Even something like that would require some tweaking, so that the article doesn't violate WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was more or less my dilemma - the content itself is fine, but the article as is seems more like a place to keep it than a topic in and of itself. Maybe fold some of the larger "tentpoles" into "History of Nuclear Power" and ditch the rest? Spaig (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is decent article about the nuclear industry Fotaun (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I do agree that a rename may be needed, however, this particular topic is notable and is referred to as a "nuclear renaissance" in many academic circles. A simple google scholar search finds numerous reliable results using this phrase. There is even a book titled with it. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Kelley

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

PROD removed without explanation, still fails GNG and NBASKETBALL as long as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 07:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable basketball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest paid Bengali film actors

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

Not verifiable. When the article says "not all salaries are made public", it understates the problem. Sources listing highest-paid Indian actors exist,[29][30] but I haven't found such a list with a Bengali on it. Historically, such data for Bangladeshi actors has not been reported in reliable sources. (The whole ethnic dimension of the list seems problematic, as data is needed for British Bangladeshis, Bengali Americans, etc.)

Searches of the usual types found reliable sources for only 2 of 20 figures, one actor's salary and another's net worth. That doesn't make a useful list. Worldbruce (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:LISTN, WP:GNG and is unverifiable Spiderone 20:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTN. Ajf773 (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals.ph

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

Site seems dead (fell off Alexa graph last April), and all we have here is promotional language, generic history, and uncited fluffy claims. DMacks (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The references are poor and I am not finding better on this website. I found one passing mention of rivals.ph as one of several sponsors of a poker tournament (Manila Bulletin 2014 – via HighBeam (subscription required) ) but would have expected more if the subject was notable, as Highbeam has decent inclusion of Philippines media. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as sources are only announcements with nothing becoming genuine substance, and there's simply nothing else in this but a business listing. SwisterTwister talk 03:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie Ryan Manriquez

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

Failed WP:PROD: Retired child actor who does not appear to clear WP:NACTOR, and who definitely fails WP:GNG (no substantial mentions in Variety, THW, or Entertainment Weekly). Article is insufficiently sourced to establish notability, and this does not appear likely to change. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does not have substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so he fails WP:NBIO. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Louis

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

Just fails WP:NHOCKEY but otherwise also appears to fail WP:GNG per only WP:ROUTINE sources (signings, trades, etc.). Yosemiter (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Superficially qualifies under WP:NATHLETE as the Elite Ice Hockey League is the "top professional league" in UK but for a Canadian player, NHL would be the correct league, and he didn't even get his cup of coffee there. All other coverage falls under the category of WP:ROUTINE transactions - not even game reports. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NHOCKEY is part of and supersedes the basic NATHLETE. Yosemiter (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's played 37 games in the EIHL so far,[31] so he satisfies NHOCKEY #1. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't satisfy NHOCKEY. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- @Clarityfiend: Incorrect, the EIHL can only be used to qualify via criterion #4 of NHOCKEY as further explained in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/League assessment. These leagues have been assessed by their independent secondary coverage into the tiers as described. Yosemiter (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banchbo Sharad Samman

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable award failing WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable award at an non-notable festival won by non-notable people. This is speedy delete material. Xaxing (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WeRbangali Sarodsomman

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

Non-notable award failing WP:GNG. PRODed and then dePRODed as "Removed the delete notice, If you google about this award ceremony you'll find plenty of references of it. Maybe this award is not historic but it exists for few years." Well... I do not see even a single google hits from WP:RS. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing substantive in independent sources. Appears to be a niche set of awards given through an ethnic or local business organization that has no notability, either. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Western Conference Championship (PIHA)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe decker ^talk 04:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable league/conference. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Maiello

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

Non-notable "playwright, comedian, journalist, and author" lacking in-depth support to establish WP:BIO notability. reddogsix (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable as an author (barely 2 books so far) and naturally there's no automatic inherited notability from anything or anyone else regardless, there's simply nothing genuinely convincing for an article here and the sources themselves emphasize it. SwisterTwister talk 05:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There may be a rationale for a redirect to Startup Village here; if so, that is an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sijo Kuruvilla George

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

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}}.

Not notable. Most of the article talks about an organization this person was supposedly associated with for some time in the past. Most links are are also about the organization, which may or may not be notable. There is nothing about this person which makes him notable, except this association with this organization. Aurorion (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article Improved, I vote to keep it

Agreed that the Wikipedia page of Sijo Kuruvilla George doesn't do justice to his work especially in the entrepreneurship space in the state of Kerala. He is one of the pioneers who kick started and later spearheaded an entrepreneurship movement in the very conservative state where technology startups were a foreign term. The organisation in reference is Startup Village which is also India's First Public-Private-Partnership Technology Business Incubator, which is now moving to the 2nd phase of their operations as SV.CO.

It is understandable that most of his recent work has not been covered as he has moved to working with educators and government bodies. He recently worked with Kerala Startup Mission to design the KSUM Fellowship Programme and now is working with KITCO to design the school education programs. He was also invited to write a column for Mathrubhumi.

Aby James (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC +05:30)

Notes:

1. One of his interview in Manorama News
2. One of his interview in Media One.
3. His Mathrubhumi Column: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4. Search of Startup Village on Google
5. Startup Village on Economic Times
6. Search of Startup Village on YouTube
7. Search of Sijo Kuruvilla George on YouTube
8. Coverage of Sijo Kuruvilla George on The Hindu: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Article Improved, I vote to keep it

I have edited the page to reflect Startup Village's importance, and Sijo's contributions outside Startup Village especially the role as a entrepreneurship columnist as mentioned by Aby James.

Aurorion please review the changes and if satisfactory, please remove the delete request.

DhananSekhar (talk) 04:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced - while the edits have made the page better, they haven't established notability in my opinion. Most of the links provided are primarily about Startup Village, the organization that he was associated with in the past. While these links may establish the notability of this organization, they don't necessarily imply that this person is notable. Being a columnist on a regional language newspaper doesn't make him notable either (every newspaper has dozens of columnists). This article looks like a CV, and that too without any major achievements except for a brief past association with an incubator. Would like to hear from other experienced WP editors. Aurorion (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article fails notability as most of the references where only mentioning about the organization he worked with. There's no mentions about him or his contribution. 137.97.219.249 (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To Wikipedia editors: The page has been improved in accordance with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Main points to consider when making the decision.

1. Founding CEO of India's first Public Private Partnership model business incubator.
2. Establishment of India's first Student Entrepreneurship Policy.
3. Sijo Kuruvilla George's and Startup Village's impact on entrepreneurship in the State of Kerala.

Aby James 3 February 2017 (+05:30 UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out a few !votes that looked WP:DUCKy. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation closed

The sockpuppet investigation raised by KATMAKROFAN has been closed. Requesting to revoke the striking out of our votes. Aby James (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:CANVASSING, WP:MEAT, and Template:Rally. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the first 10 references, five don't mention the subject at all, three are dead links, only one discusses the subject, one contains a peripheral quote. The author seems to be trying to list as many links as possible and hoping that quantity overcomes quality.--Rpclod (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I rest my case

It seems my contributions to improve the page is perceived as sockpuppeting, canvassing, and meatpuppetry. All new terms which took good reading to understand the concepts and will take more processes and time to clear.

As one of the people who closely observes the Indian startup ecosystem, I believe Sijo Kuruvilla George's contributions in setting up and founding Startup Village and the subsequent impact it had on the Kerala Startup Ecosystem deserves a Wikipedia page.

The intention is not quantity over quality either. When references and citations were required, those were provided. And all the links provided are to credible sources as outlined in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The dead links can be retrieved from the Internet Archive. For example, for the 2nd reference retrieved from the Internet Archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20131029204533/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/131009/lifestyle-offbeat/article/cool-calm-and-oh-so-young. But I feel any attempts to make any more edits will end up being misconstrued. Aby James (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have undone the striking of two editors' comments by User:KATMAKROFAN as being unwarranted. The SPI did not establish any connection, and the other reasons suggested do not justify such refactoring. Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While the recent edits to the subject article made by Aby James and DhananSekhar are welcome, irrespective of the outcome of the deletion proposal, request them to disclose any personal connections with the subject person in the interest of WP:COI. Since both users have already published their linkedin profiles and websites on the SPI page, hope this is not an unreasonable request. Specifically requesting this because the subject person's linkedin profile appears among "suggested pages" on both profiles, which indicates strong possibility of a non-insignificant connection as per Linkedin algorithms. Aurorion (talk) 18:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My profession involves researching startups and being involved in the Indian startup ecosystem that includes founders, incubators, accelerators, investors, educational institutions, government bodies etc. I have met Sijo Kuruvilla George and his team as part of my study on the state of student entrepreneurship in Kerala and while he was a visiting consultant for LetsVenture working on policy changes in angel investments in India. I also reach out to him to solicit opinions on startup policies as I do with all my sources. Aby James (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first two sources are articles from major Indian newspapers mentioning Sijo Kuruvilla George. This is a strong indication that the subject fulfils WP:GNG. Inwind (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In response to Aurorion's request I would like to disclose that I know Sijo in person and My startup was once incubated in Startup Village. But my startup has no ties with Startup Village at this point of time and I do not have any business or family ties with Sijo. Only reason I'm here is because I have seen first hand how much Sijo has contributed to the growth of startup ecosystem in Kerala. If Sijo was in Silicon Valley, there would be no question about his notability, it's just that in our corner of the world, the ecosystem is not mature enough. Regardless of what the decision is on this article is today, I'm confident that Sijo's page will be in Wikipedia a decade down the line, by which time, I expect our startup ecosystem to mature and Sijo's contributions to become too obvious to ignore. I would take my leave from this discussion by reiterating my stance that this page deserves to stay here. DhananSekhar (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, Aby James & DhananSekhar for clarifying on your connection with the subject person.

Inwind: I don't think being merely mentioned in major newspapers is a sufficient criterion to establish notability - as mentioned by Rpclod, most of the links are about startups or Startup Village, and only mention the subject person trivially. Startup Village may be notable, but that doesn't mean that this person is.

At the risk of whataboutery, other articles which I have been involved with have been deleted as a result of similar arguments. For example: Krishnan Ganesh, which in my opinion had far better references^[1] (in terms of both quantity and quality) for notability than this subject^[2] here. Aurorion (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Comment: Aurorion, wish to clarify a couple of points.
- Sijo Kuruvilla George is the co-founder (Founding CEO) of Startup Village and it was under his leadership that the organisation grew and made the impact in Kerala.
- The references are to Sijo Kuruvilla George and Startup Village not to startups.
- From the trivial coverage section you linked to: On the other hand, the notability guideline doesn't require that the subject is the main topic of the source material, only that it's more than a trivial mention. (...) Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and prestigious awards are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability. Aby James (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising and the information listed above confirm it, overall the history shows there's no convincing signs of satisfying our policies and what they would need from it. SwisterTwister talk 05:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment SwisterTwister, the discussions in this page has been based on clarification, substantiating and based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Requesting to clarify and substantiate your statement. Aby James (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / redirect to Startup Village - a news search brings back many hits to confirm existence, but as the company / organisation article is small, I would prefer to merge things there. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

However, all sources in the link are clear advertising including clear paid press and republished company words. See:

1 is a clearly labeled press release including a full company interview, and in a known paid press
2 is exactly same
3 is same
4 is same
5 is same
6-11 all finally show same, including the consistency in both paid press publications and words. SwisterTwister talk 01:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not a journalist, so I am not qualified enough to verify the authenticity of press. But, paid press on The Hindu, Deccan Chronicle, Malayala Manorama, Reuters, The Economic Times, BBC, Business Line, & CUSAT, all respected organisations? Aby James (talk) 08:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article and sources do not establish ~~establish~~ notability per guidelines. Fails basic WP:GNG as subject has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Article has been "reference bombed" with a lot of sources that do not meet this requirement. Current sources:

Deccan Chronicle and Malayala Manorama are deadlinks
Reuters. BBC, The Economic Times, CUSAT, first The Hindu reference, all 3 The Financial Express references, Second Business Line reference, second Malayala Manorama reference make no mention him.
First Business Line reference - one sentence quote about Emerging Kerala Global Connect
Business Standard and IANS - same press release
Second The Hindu - quote about expansion of Startup Village
The Smart CEO is an interview
All five Mathrubhumi references (July 4, 2016, July 11, 2016, July 18, 2016, July 25, 2016, August 1, 2016) - articles written by subject.

None of the references where the subject is mentioned meet all 3 requirements of being significant coverage and independent coverage and in a reliable sources. CBS527^Talk 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Pinky and the Brain episodes. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Star Warners

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

Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:EPISODE. Was a redirect for 9 years, before it was reverted. Best as a redirect, but ip editor does not agree. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect as nothing establishing genuine substance and it's obvious since we're not an episode guide like IMDb. SwisterTwister talk 07:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as above. The article is nothing but a very brief synopsis followed by a bunch of unsourced trivia. The individual episode was not notable, as demonstrated by the complete lack of reliable sources that come up when doing searches. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arkady L. Bukh

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:NOTWEBHOST full of descriptions of his cases. Already some of the victims have expressed their concerns that this article harasses them. Which violates WP:BLP. From previous deletion discussion it is clear that it is a COI. Created to promote the subject. An WP:SPA created this large and well formatted article in a single edit. The account was created at 07:44 and the article 07:51 on 24 November 2014. A new account can not create such large, well formatted article in just 7 minutes. It must be a WP:SOCK of any expert wikipedian. Meaninf its an Undisclosed paid editing. - Mar11 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per COVERAGE, per WP:GNG. plenty of good sources. That a SPA created the article is irrelevant as long as the article subject passes WP:GNG. This article was put through an AfD in July 2015, with No consensus result. I see nothing that points towards a Delete !vote, as the article seems to have been improved even further since then. BabbaQ (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Geeks

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

Not seeing, nor could I find any significant independent sources to satisfy notability. Nearly all current references are self-published, searching online didn't reveal other notable publication coverage. It's possible the coverage around the Buddhist Geeks Conference may warrant a page/stub on that topic specifically. Drewmutt (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though with the caveat that it may be ending. The existing sourcing is atrocious, but a mild WP:TROUT to the nominator for not finding "significant independent sources." I did an extremely cursory search and by the second page of results found articles about them not only in the Wired source cited, but also in The Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, Tech Times, and Tricycle (which is a major mainstream Buddhist magazine). Those are clearly independent, reliable sources that establish adequate indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 19:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't seem like a useful search term. (Unless "first" is actually part of the name, and not merely descriptive?) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Roller In-line Hockey World Championship

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a reference but it is a primary source. It claims to be a world championship which sounds like it might have a chance of being notable but the Google links don't seem to offer anything to support it. So, probaly a delete unless anybody finds any better RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge. Per nom and reasoning above. I could also see this moved into a catch-all section on the governing body's page, Fédération Internationale de Roller Sports, until enough evidence that it warrants a stand alone article. GauchoDude (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strat Don

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

No sources to demonstrate qualifies under WP:BAND and compliance with WP:GNG rests on one short article about a single. Other sources social media or otherwise not WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Kaye

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

Delete. Minimally sourced biography of an anaesthetist, whose only apparent claim of notability is that the anaesthetists' professional organization named a couple of things after him following his death and the fact that a non-notable local history museum holds some of his former knick-knack collection. There's really very little here of any substance beyond that, with the article otherwise taken up entirely by routine biographical details that have no bearing on notability whatsoever. The two sources cited here are just being used to support his date of birth and the existence of the museum collection, rather than anything that might get his career over the notability standard for medical professionals, and both of them are incomplete citations (my favourite: "Volume 17, Melbourne University Press", but failing to specify Volume 17 of what), making it nearly impossible to actually verify whether he's the actual subject of either source or just namechecked within it. Further, this was overwritten almost a year ago with a biography of a completely different person whose claim to encyclopedic notability was even weaker and even more poorly sourced than this, yet it took this long for anybody to notice the fact -- which says something about the amount of traffic this is actually generating. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he can be sourced and substanced much better than this, but there's just no meat here in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nominator's comments. Old articles like this keep floating to the surface - it always surprises me that they survive for so long with such weak references! Exemplo347 (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't get past the hurdle. Neutrality^talk 20:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough to establish notability. From [32]: "he edited Practical Anaesthesia (1932), the first Australian textbook on the subject", caused the establishment of the Australian Society of Anaesthetics" largely as a result of his lobbying", "He collaborated with Robert Orton and Douglas Renton in Anaesthetic Methods (1946)", was elected a fellow of the faculty of anaesthetics, Royal College of Surgeons, ASA museum named after him since 1956. This [33] add that he published over 200 articles and books, received the Orton Medal in 1973. This [34] from US National Institute of Health is another source to establish notability. Here is another online biography [35]]. Note that these online biographies have themselves bibliographies of sources which could be used to improve this article. AFD is not cleanup. The article is labeled as a stub and needs much improvement. But the topic is notable. MB 04:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, enough to establish notability [36]. This is the "Volume 17" that was mentioned in the original sourcing - took a few seconds to establish with a Google search. Clearly notable in the anaesthetics field, as one of its pioneers in Australia in the 1930s. Also one of the founding members of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists. Bearcat I cannot see any evidence in the page history of the "overwriting" you mention - do you have any diffs?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:57, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Balázs Horváth

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

Fails WP:BIO. Refs seem to point to the fact he is a compassionate veterinarian. Unable to determine the location details of environment prize after extensive search. Most links are blogs but with some coverage. Could be notable? scope_creep (talk) 17:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a resume. I can't see any more evidence of WikiNotability in the Hungarian article and its references than in the English one - which is, none at all. Egon Schmidt looks as if he could be notable, but I can't find any evidence that recipients of the prize named after him are notable per se. I suspect also that Ferencvárosi Kutyatartók Érdekvédelmi Civil Szervezete might not pass WP:NORG. Narky Blert (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not able to make head or tail of all these Hungarian references, so that's a bit of a hindrance in assessing notability... :/ -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Use Google Translate or better Bing Translate on the pages the reference are linked, and then have a read, determine if you think the ref is good enough for the article, and that the refs make the articles subject notable. There is no magic about it, only work. scope_creep (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the Egon Schmidt page, but couldn't determine how valid or prestigious it was. If it was international then certainly he would be notable. If the editor could come in and provide some guidance. scope_creep (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD 118598

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

Not notable as per WP:NASTRO. Well below naked eye brightness, no publications specifically concerning this star, just a handful of entries in large surveys. One implicit claim to notability might be the solar analog angle, although the article itself (own research?) appears to nix the idea and there is no supporting citation. Lithopsian (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Transwiki to Wikiversity I generally consider myself as an inclusionist especially when coming to subjects regarding astronomical objects and hacker incidents. But in this case I think that this article is better suited as a material on Wikiversity where original research are allowed. We haven't developed even a decent form of interstellar travel to explore the nearest star Proxima Centauri as of 2017, let alone the subject star and its surroundings so who knows if someone found something significant near the star (ranging from an exoplanet to something outlandish like a suspected Dyson sphere, remember the Tabby's star?). If something significant is found regarding the star, more power to the folks at Wikiversity on whether to transwiki it back to here or not, the period from the time I offered this opinion to the time when something significant or two is found regarding the star may range from days to even centuries or longer. In the case of the period spanning a range of decades, centuries or even longer, I would seriously doubt that whether Wikipedia or even the whole Wikimedia project would remain strong beyond the foreseeable future because of my experience with some deletionist editors when they nominated to delete the first articles I've created on here. I even considered to leave Wikipedia for good and try to tell every other people who may think to start a Wikipedia article. In fact, I think that they are slowly ruining the Wikipedia project by turning it into a Britannica 2.0, an antithesis of Jimmy Wale's ideals. But for now, in January 4th of year 2017, it's WP:TOOSOON on Wikipedia to include the subject as a separate article. Thank you. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Jimmy Wales, and, if he has any principles, they are not necessarily Wikipedia's principles, which are decided by the editing community within very broad parameters decided by the Wikimedia Foundation. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may only agree with you on only one thing that the subject doesn't have enough significance to gain a consensus to include it as a separate Wikipedia article yet, but if only delete the article itself, people would have to exhaustively use Google to put together information regarding this star, potentially damaging user experience of the researcher. In this case, I repeat my position that it'll be transwikied to Wikiversity.Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity is a Wikimedia Foundation project devoted to learning resources, learning projects, and research for use in all levels, types, and styles of education from pre-school to university, including professional training and informal learning.

~~So what, exactly, does this article have to do with Wikiversity? Where, exactly, would it go? --Calton | Talk 17:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~A subpage under the "List of stars" page in the astronomical section in Wikiversity. Bugmenot123123123 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Striking vote of blocked user, who was only participating at AfD to make a point. Brad v 04:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it, I agree with all points, I see no real errors in the statements. Telecine Guy (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the "solar twin" aspect cuts the mustard. What interests people about possible solar twins is that they might have "Earth twins" orbiting them, but the evolutionary history of any possible planet orbiting a star in a multiple star system would be expected to be completely different from that of the Earth. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: for now I'd suggest redirecting it to Solar analog, where it is listed in a table. Praemonitus (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Praemonitus, it was removed from the list in the solar analog article in October. As I suggested to Astro, a more appropriate redirect would be Star system#Triple. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest a Merge/Redirect to a single row in List of stars in Hydra. Praemonitus (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although a redirect to a list would make some sense, this star is not currently in List of stars in Hydra and that list is specifically of notable stars so almost by definition every star on it is deserving of an article. Lithopsian (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep looks like a solid article about star. It is really a shame this is even considered for deletion. Fotaun (talk) 20:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's 300,000,000 years younger than our star (the Sun). If life on an Earth-like planet orbiting it is following the same timeline as Earth, in 300,000,000 years there will be a sentient being on that planet writing on their Wiki about how 300,000,000 years earlier there was probably a Wiki-building life form here, but bemoaning that we will likely be long gone. It's like ships passing in the night that is 300,000,000 years long. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the ocean is 900,000,000,000,000 miles wide. Jack N. Stock (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ~~or redirect to Solar analog.~~ As the nominator correctly points out, this star fails all notability criteria under WP:NASTRO. As for the solar analog argument, I searched the scholarly literature for mentions of this star, and it has not received significant attention for that (or any other) reason. If we disregard the notability criteria for stars like this, then we'd be flooded with potentially hundreds of millions of stubs which merely duplicate information from astronomical catalogues. ~~As for the proper outcome of this AfD, I don't really have a strong preference between deleting and redirecting. I would support either outcome.~~ Astro4686 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HD 118598 fails the solar analog test on a fundamental level because it is part of a multiple star system. It would most appropriately redirect to Star system#Triple. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I have changed my vote accordingly. Thanks for your reply, Jack. You're correct about not redirecting to Solar analog. I don't see much point in redirecting such a specific object to an article as general as Star system#Triple, so I now vote to delete. Astro4686 (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in Hydra. Nothing much about this star attracts attention, the content can easily fit into a row in list of stars in Hydra where I believe it's supposed to have its own (currently nonexistent) row. ~ KN2731 {talk} 15:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Generated Solutions, Inc.

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

All of the sources are Press release and primary sources. The company is non notable. Possible COI. Mar11 (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam / office directory. One would think that a 7,000+ employee company could be notable, but I could not find any sources that were not PR. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:MILL. Thus is too new, in an industry rampant with new outfits who call themselves call centers. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to VideoBlocks. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GraphicStock

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

WP:BOMBARDMENT of sources. But actually the company is not notable at all. All of the sources are trivial mentions. It is WP:TOOSOON Mar11 (talk) 11:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect to VideoBlocks as the parent company. I'm not sure if the latter is notable itself, but seems like a good enough target for now and this would avoid recreation. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested and per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MiniLyrics

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

Fails WP:NSOFT, no significant coverage in reliable sources and much of this article is just out-of-place WP:TRIVIA. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only apparent link to WP:RS is 404, and searches don't turn up anything significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent references. Refs provided are company sites, forums and download sites which are not independent. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage, with the marginal exception of this short Lifehacker piece: http://lifehacker.com/400044/minilyrics-automatically-fetches-and-displays-lyrics-for-your-media-player - on its own insufficient to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Dead Rabbitts. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Reality (EP)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect. Should probably be a redirect, but the redirect continues to be reverted. Does not pass either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If decision is to redirect, we could prevent new or unregistered editors from modifying the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a couple of reviews from fringe sites are not enough to demonstrate notability.--Rpclod (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Autobox24

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

User who created page has long history of soapboxing. Page is nothing but WP:PROMO. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's a clear business listing here and from a come-and-go account thus deletion sufficient alone, and searches found nothing better, hence nothing convincing at all. SwisterTwister talk 00:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Molly: An Adventure In Catsitting

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

Unable to find any reliable sources documenting this topic, reviews from RS publications, or even anything RS (after a cursory search) about the author. It appears to be a non-notable webcomic that was printed from a kickstarter campaign.-Ich (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Ich (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Any" is a big word. IGN looks good, I don't know if Entertainment Monthly is reliable but the article looks good, GeekDad may be reliable, and I don't know if Goodreads is a reliable source but it looks like something. This is four sources, only one of which I am completely sure that it is reliable. None of the sources that I commonly come across while searching for webcomic sources have ever mentioned it... I agree with the delete, though I think it's pretty close. It's simply too difficult to write an article with just these sources. ~Mable (chat) 13:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the IGN article but wasn't sure that it was a staff writer or user-generated content. The others I am not familiar with. I still couldn't find any coverage in traditional media.-Ich (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even the IGN article, while the text seems fine, appears to be from a rare contributor at IGN, 7 reviews in all, who is unable to give ratings that aren't 4 or 4.5 stars. [37]. The concern that this article might not be from a general staff member of IGN seems at least plausible. --joe decker ^talk 02:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. apparent consensus after relisting DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Radhika Roy

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

PRODed as "Non-notable businesswoman/journalist, wife of a notable businessman and probably just a rubber-stamp co-founder and co-chairman of her husband's company. Fails WP:GNG." Later dePRODed by "Expanding article" and adding refs to unsourced statements, which still do not show her to be notable enough than being wife of a founder and maybe thus a co-founder. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well maybe she is co-founder and co-chairman merely because she "rubber stamps" her husband's work. This, however, suggests it might be the other way round and that her husband's position is actually due to her. Her husband says "she is the guiding vision and force behind NDTV." but maybe he is just being self-deprecating. Anyway, reliable sources are present. Thincat (talk) 09:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That piece is what a hagiography is. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite a few reliable sources seem to suggest she is not a rubber stamp but an active businesswoman e.g.^[1], ^[2],^[3]. Clearly passes WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChunnuBhai (talk • contribs) 08:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rediff piece, hagiography as stated above. Cravan doesn't really tell you if she is rubber-stamp or not either but just that she hold shares in so and so companies. Business Standard says "Sebi initiates action against NDTV, Prannoy Roy, Radhika Roy, RRPR Holdings". She finds mention in the headline and once in the article; which is just the starting line that elaborated the headline. This actually is in her merely being of a (rubber-stamp) head and nothing else. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only suggestion that she is a "rubber stamp" comes from the delete nominator, not from any sources. The sources -- including Bloomberg business -- confirm a 10 year career in print and more than 25 years in television, and that she co-founded and manages a company. I agree that the lead wasn't strong and much of the information was in the sources and not on the page -- so I've improved the page. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NDTV seems to be a major mainstream media in India. As the founder of a notable media company, I think the subject is notable. Yes, the article has a bunch of non-noteworthy information which needs to be trimmed. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this suggests that she was the actual founder of the company while and she offered a job to her husband to work there. Not sure what is the exact situation, but I think it is fair to have a standalone article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Dharmadhyaksha to have a look and see if the source is reliable. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW and as a hoax. I've given the article's creator a WP:NOTHERE block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chivas USA Youth

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

Team with questionable notability, not sure how we go over kids sports teams, however it was just founded this year. Wgolf (talk) 04:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoaxing alarms are going off; Chivas USA went down in flames two years ago and the 'sourcing' uses a well out-of-date 2015 article, along with a link to another soccer club (here Club Necaxa's page), and most of the 'players' here are red-links or just link to other subjects who are obviously not youth soccer players. Finally, I doubt an American extension of a Guadalajara soccer club would use Pompano Beach, Florida as their base due to a lack of a Mexican-American population base in Florida. Nate • (chatter) 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually none of the names exist-check even the blue links. I already tagged one of the creators articles as a db-hoax. Wgolf (talk) 05:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a misuse as a webhost and there's absolutely nothing for our policies. SwisterTwister talk 05:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny O'Donovan

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

Promotional page for a non-notable entertainment promoter. There are no sources, and there's a good reason for this: I found exactly 3 mentions in what could be considered reliable sources (a 1972 Billboard article, a 1994 LA Times article, and a 1998 NY Times article), and all 3 are just that, a single mention in an article about something else entirely. Reads like a vanity page. Rockypedia (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per past practice We almost always delete articles about promoters and producers, since they are so common, especially when sourcing them is so difficult. Right now as it stands, it's mostly a wall of text of trivia and boasting about his connections to famous people. I'd rather delete and start over with this unsourced BLP, unless somebody can fix it, pronto. Bearian (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entertainment promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arron Banks. No independent notability established. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Westmonster

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

Non-notable website, no coverage, didn't even exist at the time this article was created, according to its own content. Largoplazo (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I reckon there's a good chance this will become notable in the not-too-distant future, but until then it should be merged into Arron Banks. Adam9007 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given it's bankrolled by Banks, it's only a matter of time before it takes off. Alligators1974 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I recommend that you read WP:CRYSTAL. The pertinent question here is whether it is notable now. Largoplazo (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep I've heard of it and no doubt it will drive many Wikipedia editors crazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 (talk) 10:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've expanded the article as it stands. Whilst I accept that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the amount of information on this page would be undue weight on Banks' article, in my opinion. HelgaStick (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established. Promotional spam. Citing a YouTube video does nothing to enhance the quality of the article. "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it. If the web content itself did not receive notice, then the web content is not notable. " WP:WEB. Lame Name (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – echoing Adam9007. To keep would go against WP:CRYSTAL. Notability is not established at this point. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:40, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Nilsson (model)

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

WP:BLP of non-notable model. Article has been flagged with COI issues and "sources" (before I moved them to External links) cannot be considered WP:RS. (Note: I messed up BLP PROD via Twinkle: hadn't noticed it had to be unsourced. I moved the "sources" to EL and uncited after PROD. My mistake.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 03:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added sources to the article in question. Rickard.Nosslin (talk) 09:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but see point #5 here: WP:SELFPUB. It states that we cannot base a biographical article primarily (or indeed entirely, as in this case) on self-published sources, though we can use them as sources of info on the subject as long as other sources are present. See also WP:BLPSPS and the paragraph following it. (Note: I was unaware of the policy when I removed the official site as a reference. I apologise for that.) We need more reliable sources. I have found one article on the Gay Wave website recently, actually, but I'm not sure how reliable it is. Any thoughts? — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Link to article here — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not enough coverage from WP:RELIABLE sources to support notability. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lack of sources that would allow for passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Mohajer

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:Notability. WP:BIO1E No articles about him. Sources are about others, not him, just his Huff Post profile. He's not well known at all. Wrote an essay in the HuffPost alleging the Russians installed Donald Trump as president. Essay was widely read. At most he's a one eventer. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. He may also be creator of the article. See WP:COI. Here's an interview he did [38] SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article cited in Mohajer's piece is written by Kathleen Klenetsky, not Lyndon LaRoche. Furthermore, his article cites to at least twenty sources.[Post] Fairly sufficient evidence that there is newsworthiness here. This seems to be a biased opinion based on misstatement of fact.

Bros4America (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are not based on 'newsworthiness' they are based on notability of the subject of the article. He's got none to justify an article. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Notability. WP:BIO1E SW3 5DL (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally unnotable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shintani Tadahiko

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

A professor who doesn't pass WP:GNG, and doesn't come close to passing WP:SCHOLAR, highest cite count being 9. Had originally speedied, which was contested after some work was done on the article, but searches turned up virtually zero, although he has quite a few published works, but nothing seems to be in-depth about him. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that our colleagues at the Japanese Wikipedia have seen that he should have a page since 2009, suggests that in Japan he is regarded as notable. The fact that he has published on a number of languages for which there is no other, or almost no other, source, alone means that he has had a significant impact in his field. As for citation rates, it is clear that Google rather under counts these in Japanese and for sources not on line, so the count of 9 you cite should be taken cum grano salis. Tibetologist (talk) 04:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the subject is a famous Japanese linguist with many published works. That there is an article on him on the Japanese Wikipedia, and that he is extensively referenced on the English Wikipedia are evidence of his notability. BabelStone (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shintani is cited in at least thirteen English Wikipedia articles and is also cited in the Arabic, Indonesian, Portuguese, Russian, and even Ilocano Wikipedias. He is an authority on multiple languages in multiple language families, and wrote key publications on some of those languages. It makes little sense to have articles on those languages without an article on the man who introduced them to the scholarly world. Amritavira (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF. But I would still like to see better sources that are accessible in English. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. Subject's field is clearly under-cited in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. He is a notable linguist in his field, and his works are cited many times in English Wikipedia articles. Deleting the article just creates a bunch of redlinks on those articles -- where's the benefit of that? BabelStone (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the RS that shows this fellow is notable? The field being 'under-cited" doesn't justify an article. If he is a notable linguist, show the RS for that. I'd be happy to change to Keep. Without reliable coverage of him, the article fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three more references to the article by reliable sources that mention Shintani's work. The article was in a very poor state when it was created, with no references or categories, so I am not at all surprised it was nominated for deletion, but I think there is now enough references to indicate that the subject is notable. BabelStone (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article improvements. I believe that the article demonstrates subject's notability as an academic at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There needs to be sources that are about this fellow, not sources that mention him. If he is notable, it's not a passing mention. What they do on the Japanese Wiki does not necessarily translate here. There needs to be sources we can all access. I will check Google books, but until there are sources, this cannot be closed. He either has sources about him, or he doesn't. If not, then it has to be deleted. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Japanese Wikipedia for this name and there is no article about this fellow under that name. It returns a red link here SW3 5DL (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: Academics can be notable under WP:PROF instead of WP:GNG, in which case the requirement for significant coverage is a lot looser. The Japanese article is located at ja:新谷忠彦. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: Thanks, I know about the rule on professors. Thanks for finding this. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I started the page so it is no surprise I am in favor of keeping it, my reasons, already on his talk page are points all touched on above. In particular, I find the argument that a number of languages are only known of through this man's work as means eo ipso that he is an notable as they are. Tibetologist (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - retired full professor in an important field, and based on improvement, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Admittedly the case for a keep here is lacking in substance, but so is the argument for deletion. Google Scholar is not the be-all and end-all of WP:PROF#C1, it has many shortcomings, and clearly it's not working very well for a scholar who a) primarily publishes in Japanese and b) did most of his work pre-internet. Since I can't read Japanese there isn't a lot to go on either way, but on the basis of having a eight-year-old article on ja-wiki I'll err towards !voting keep. – Joe (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: I was thinking the same thing and only changed from delete to keep because of the prof thing. But not having reliable sources about him we can read, means we really can't verify his notability. And since he does have a wiki article, and there does not seem to be any real reference to him in English, I still think he should be deleted, even with the trend to keep. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- English-language sources are not a requirement within en.wiki. The content of the article is most definitely not a hoax, and I do see some sources that discuss the subject's work as a linguist: Lai Su Thai, as well as many citations: Gbooks preview. It's thus very likely that additional sources exist in Japanese. On the balance of things, I believe that the subject passes ACADEMIC and/or AUTHOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman: I'm not saying they're a requirement. I'm saying we can't verify his notability. And there are no sources just about him. It's all mentions, nothing in depth. I will add, that his area of expertise does not lend itself to widespread coverage, even among academics, it's a very esoteric field. I couldn't find anything at Oxford, though I'm sure there's something in Bodleian. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For academics, we need sources about their work, which I believe are sufficiently present in the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Hernick

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

Political candidate who fails WP:GNG, article is also clearly promotional. JamesG5 (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Politician. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing convincing and only a mere listing. SwisterTwister talk 05:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious A7 candidate ("He addresses high-profile issues affecting natural resources and economic development by informing policy changes, improving program implementation, and managing projects effectively" are fine words, but since it's unsourced and presumably from a press release isn't remotely approaching a credible claim of significance.) ‑ Iridescent 18:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I originally A7ed it but another editor disagreed, which is why I went via AfD. JamesG5 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah—I should have guessed who the editor in question was. ‑ Iridescent 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Hansen

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person is quoted a lot in the media, but there seem to be no secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local level realtor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a realtor, by the way. Jacona (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not an advertising site. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising? How is this article any sort of advertising? Sorry, I just don't see that at all. Could you elaborate on how you believe this to be advertising? Thanks! Jacona (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete somewhat reluctantly, as there is an argument that the regional coverage she has received may be adequate to meet notability as a state-level CEO of a major trade organization. However, in this case, the article is so clearly a promo piece for a person who is a lobbyist for the real estate industry that it really does require deletion per WP:NOADS. In fact, it smacks of being a paid piece, though the editor probably was more interested in her connection to Florida sports figures, but there, we have NOTINHERITED. Montanabw^(talk) 19:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the article is good, but whether the subject of the article is notable, isn't it? And are you really accusing me of paid editing? And if this is advertising, what am I selling for goodness sake? This person is not a realtor, but as stated, a state-level CEO of a major trade organization. Jacona (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maccasio

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

Article does not prove enough notability. No Album Catalogue, No awards or enough mainstream media coverage Itspoojkins (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HotelCoupons.com

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

non-notable website Wikipedia:Notability (web) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:ADVERT with no salvageable content. Nate • (chatter) 00:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT, fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete . Materialscientist (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Hanratty

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

No notability - Speedy Deletion process (WP:A7) repeatedly disrupted by article creator Exemplo347 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston (Disney)

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

Do we need a "character" page? We already have List_of_Disney's_Beauty_and_the_Beast_characters#Gaston. Kellymoat (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article proves subject's notability and is decently written with a good amount of third-party sources. If anything, some sections do go into a bit too much detail and could use some trimming. Plus, it reduces the length of the overlong BatB character article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge to Beauty and the Beast~~. Amending to Keep but only if improved per WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:Essay and some sections are clearly WP:SYNTH. Reads like an infatuated fan wrote it. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have worked with @Changedforbetter: before, and I can attest that she is thorough and comprehensive and professional in every article she works on. This article had previously been fancrufty and full of listy trivia, but then CFB came along and added a wonderfully researched "Characteristics and themes" section, as well as working the Development and Reception sections too. The rest - like Appearances - still have remnants of the fancruft, but surely her work in adding third party reliable sourcing demonstrates the sheer coverage about this fictional character in the literature, and shows that his article is well earnt? I know WP:Other Stuff Exists isn't an argument, but since they're quite similar, I'd like to point your attention to this list of Disney character and song articles she has brought to GA. Gaston is soon to follow, methinks. Ergo for all these reasons I think the article should be kept.--Coin945 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need some more cleanup - parts of it seem more like an essay than an article, some of the sources being used are not reliable and should be removed, and some sections contain some OR and unsourced claims. But, looking through the sources presented in the article, a number of them do talk about, and analyze, the character in more depth than simple plot summary, which I think allows this to pass the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use improvement, but I agree with above comments that it does pass notability standards. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CFB has done improvements for various articles before, the sources check out, and besides which, considering Gaston's the main villain, it just doesn't seem right for him to be relegated to a list character. Besides, the List of Beauty and the Beast Characters needs significant trimming down, anyway. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on folks, quality articles aren't born over night; take a quick look at my Belle (Disney), Aurora (Disney character), Monica Geller and Kim Possible (character) articles, to name a few, to find examples of articles that started off in an even more abysmal state than this one, but are currently considered to be among Wikipedia's best. If notability is your concern, simply Google "best Disney villains" and you'd quickly find that Gaston is within the top ten of countdown lists published almost every single publication in the search results (Reception? check). Sure, this article might be taking a little longer to transform than we'd like, and finding reliable sources for Development is proving to be a bit of a challenge. But hear me out: if this article is kept, I'll personally see to it that it's at least B-class status by spring. Don't believe me? Take a look at the "Characterization and themes" section; that's right, I did that ;)--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've restored several VG character articles and it's completely reasonable to stick up for your own work, but you're being a tad defensive. Just about everyone here, including myself, has agreed the article should stay. I've seen my fair share of fictional character articles that are really bad and crufty, and it took seconds to realize this was not one of those instances. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I didn't nominate it due to being poorly written. I nominated it because of exactly what I said - do we need a "character" page.Kellymoat (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, do we really need a Belle or Beast article? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not a valid argument Kellymoat (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, by that logic, we should remove the Belle and Beast article precisely BECAUSE the existence of a List of Beauty and the Beast characters article makes their articles redundant. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not concerned with other articles. I/we can deal with them separately (as we should). This nomination is solely about this article. Kellymoat (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beemer69: Okay so I'm not so sure why exactly I'm being called out here for being "defensive"; all I did was state reasons the article should be given a chance, as the rest of us did, including you. Using other articles I've worked was only to provide visual examples of what this article could potentially become, sorry if you felt that was inapproate somehow. But as long as we're both arguing that the article should stay, I'm cool lol. Thanks.--Changedforbetter (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Goes into detail about the character. Some people refer to this article for the "Gaston machisimo" that he represents. I think it would be a disservice to WP to remove it. Justin15w (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perfectly notable subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep full of references, clearly notable. We have no policy against having character pages.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 23:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's lots of good content about the character, complete with references. However, the article does need a bit of cleaning up in some areas. MidnightObservation (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Forced perspective#Comic effects. Supernerd's suggestion seems sensible. No prejudice against re-targeting or opening an RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baby mugging

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

Extremely limited content, little to no chance of expansion. Fails to pass 4 and 8 - The article, the link from from Internet Phenomena, and all of the source references, except for the Daily Mail, mentioned the creator by name with references to their website. The articles overall tone is that of a free plug for the bloggers website, or tiny bio. Sawta (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Had a look at the article and "stupid" is the gentlest way to describe it. Wikipedia is not the place to parade every half-assed Internet meme. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I almost want to say redirect to Depth of field in the hopes that it might help somebody out, but the kindest result would be delete. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as soon as possible. Reads like an advert.WP:WWIN SW3 5DL (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into forced perspective#comic effects. This does lack depth, but notability still seems to be established enough to be worth a mention as a bit part. Forced perspective is probably better than depth of field, since the former already has a list of minor uses. (Disclaimer: I'm the one who created the article in contention) Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 22:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FirstCapital

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

A verbatim (to exclude "first capital" with a space) Google search firstcapital turns up nothing to demonstrate that this company meets WP:GNG. Largoplazo (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks really shady, and I would suggest to Business Insider that they vet people who may be running a Ponzi scheme, altho, to counter-point https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/581860/new-years-honours-2017-full-list.pdf does list "Ms Hazel Caroline MOORE Chairman and Co-founder, FirstCapital. For services to Entrepreneurship and Innovation."

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. The sources are not about FirstCapital. Just a mention. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; an unremarkable private investment bank going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are all from reliable publications and are not bias. The company is significant to several major deals and is chaired by a women who is top of her industry and has an OBE.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurycs (talk • contribs) — Maurycs (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete as failing GNG. The article seems to be more about Hazel Moore than about this investment bank. No sources given on how this bank itself is notable. 331dot (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Beauchamp

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

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sources to establish that Beauchamp is an author and editor. Nothing found containing significant coverage of him in independent RSes. He does get brief mentions as participating in various gatherings. Fails to satisfy the elements of WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. Gab4gab (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like self-promotion. Nothing notable and no significant coverage.Glendoremus (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Football at the 2012 ASEAN University Games

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

Non-notable sports event, poorly formatted and violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games - neither article is very long. Nfitz (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No reason for this to exist as separate article. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2012 ASEAN University Games, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Buy term and invest the difference

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

Article has been here over 10 years, and still has no substantial sources, poorly written, and seems to be more of a how-to than an article, as shown by the title. I'm not one who generally supports AfDs to generate improvements, but in this case the article has been here too long without complying to remain as -is. BilCat (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a pretty blatant and longstanding example of WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, etc. One wonders if it was written by an agent or broker looking to point to Wikipedia as a proof of what he's advising clients to do. Anyway, good catch.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above.---Ehrenkater (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known and somewhat controversial insurance investment strategy that was popular at one point and is said to have contributed to the decline of investment in life insurance. For searching, BTID is the common abbreviation and nets more sources. Given a few minutes of searching, I added 4 general references to the article. GScholar and GBooks shows hundreds of hits, so there are more sources to be had. Hence, this topic looks notable. The article does have problems with having an essay style and lack of inline citations, but given reliable source material, these are problems that can be fixed by normal editing. --Mark viking (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with a few sources added, this is still a non-encyclopedic essay. It makes assertions about spending and saving habits, about how most people do not save money after quiting smoking, etc., without any sources. The article lacks any historical or geographical context, any consideration of societal expectations, life-expectancy expectations, etc. There might be a worth-while article that could exist under this title, but this is not it, and we should TNT this article and make people start over again, using reliable sources, etc.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this team is not notable per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:38, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shippensburg Raiders Roller Hockey

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Note that it has been tagged as unsourced since January 2012. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above posters - totally fails WP:GNG, and is automatically suspect given its creator had an obvious interest in promoting roller hockey. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing about the nomination is correct, and I want to make sure people are voting for the right reasons. Pages were not all created by the same user, and WP:SPORTCRIT only applies to players, not teams. This one may actually fail WP:GNG but that doesn't change the fact that the nomination was in bad faith and the dozens of articles he also nominated easily satisfy it. If you throw a bunch of darts wildly, as nominator has, you're bound to hit something once in a while. Smartyllama (talk) 21:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association Division I is not deleted as it was not properly tagged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Collegiate Roller Hockey Championships

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on National Collegiate Roller Hockey Championships. There are some Google News hits on the subject that could maybe serve as sources. Much of the content is overkill though. It could do with the red links trimming out and generally cutting down in size to fit what the sources support.
Delete (with optional very limited merge) National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association Division I. We don't need articles on the individual divisions of a pretty minor sports league. The divisions can be briefly mentioned in the parent article without a load of crufty detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Championships article. I might have recommended merging it into the article on List of NCRHA seasons, but that one has also been nominated for deletion and looks like it might not survive. As for the Division I article, I see that no AfD template was placed on the article, so I question whether it is proper to consider its deletion here. NewYorkActuary (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Member Organization (NCRHA)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. (Note that is has been unreferenced since September 2012) Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Rankings Committee National Rankings

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:SPORTCRIT. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per rationale above. GauchoDude (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Friendship and Integration

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

WP:GNG. Non-notable award purportedly given by non-notable foundation. No press coverage apart from a Facebook post advertising a charity event that apparently took place in Warsaw a few days ago; even the foundation's website (largely under construction) doesn't mention it. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Harambi Foundation seems to have been set up in 2005 by Sudanese people living in Poland. Since then it has "suspended its activities" but was relaunched in 2016. This award was introduced in 2016 but does not seem to be mentioned on the HF website. I can find no independent sources mentioning the organisation or the award. I think both are non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Blitz

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

Looks like a man with a job, as the sources only confirm that the man has a job. Fails WP:GNG. No evidence given (and I could not find them) for the awards that he is supposed to have won. The Banner talk 18:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete background music participation at his level is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree not notable. WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Page has been edited to clearly state that mastering engineer "Ari Blitz" has worked on Grammy Nominated/Billboard charted songs/albums. This is completely 100% factual. Ari Blitz has had dozens of billboard charts songs that he has mastered in the past 10 years. As well as songs that have been nominated for grammys. It is much more than "A man with a job" this is success over a decade in the mastering field.

Please see http://www.allmusic.com/artist/ari-blitz-mn0001082530 for the credits on the nominations in question. All albums/work cited have been Grammy nominated as stated. Also please see Mack Wilds^[1]Tim Bowman Jr^[2]Salaam Remi^[3]Hiatus Kiayote^[4] These were all mastered by Ari Blitz and have been grammy nominated as stated.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Isabellejb (talk • contribs) 02:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Working on Grammy-nominated works and chart toppers doesn't make one notable. It doesn't rub off from the artists. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Page has been edited to clearly state that mastering engineer "Ari Blitz" has worked on Grammy Nominated/Billboard charted songs/albums. This is completely 100% factual.

Strike duplicate iVote from Special:Contributions/Isabellejb. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- zero encyclopedic prose. Wikipedia is not a CV hosting service either. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz in the Park festival

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

This wasn't notable during the first AfD; it still isn't today. If we filter out the official sites and the press releases, we're left with a handful of items in the local press. Nothing really suggests the veracity of the outlandish claim made in the first sentence — which, incidentally, is sourced from a dead link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Happy to reconsider if significant coverage beyond local event blurbs is found. Gab4gab (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local and non-independent sources only. no evidence of non-local notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. One of the "Delete" opinions is not supported in any way by policy, and while I'm sympathetic to the opinion expressed in the other two those concerns can be addressed with less dramatic measures, such as cleanup or stubifying out the machine-translated rubbish. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Police of Panama

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

As background:- This is one of the 3,583 articles created by machine translation using the content translation tool prior to July 2016. There was a community discussion in which it was decided (1) to disable the tool on en.wiki and (2) to pass a new, temporary criterion for speedy deletion at WP:CSD#X2, to enable the removal of these articles. The community accepted that many of these articles are fixable and properly-translated versions of them do belong on the encyclopaedia; but the community felt that machine translations are not reliable. Copyedited fixups of machine translations are also unreliable unless the person who has done the copyediting has dual fluency in the source language as well as English and so can confirm that the script has preserved the original meaning in the source language.

Since that time I have been slowly grinding through the 3,583 articles listed here. Unfortunately in the case of this article the speedy deletion was declined, and my prod was unwisely removed with the inaccurate statement that there is "no good reason for deletion", despite extensive community discussion and consensus to the contrary. So now I need to ask the community to enforce it via AfD.

I want to be clear that this translation is fixable for someone with dual fluency. I could fix it. But the effort involved is utterly disproportionate when these articles were created by scripts, and I'd like to finish this job at some point and I'm hoping to retire in 20 years. So I need the extraordinary measures the community has authorised to be enforced. Help me AfD, you're my only hope! —S Marshall T/C 17:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have copy-edited the first few paragraphs and hope to continue. Accordingly, the article is no longer eligible for speedy deletion as a machine translation. Eastmain (talk • contribs)

Great, would you like me to withdraw the AfD for a couple of weeks while you finish the job? Quite happy to do that if you do intend to fix it. Could you just confirm that you understand the source version in Spanish? The reason I ask is because translation scripts can pervert or even invert the meaning of the source text so we do need a Wikipedian to accept responsibility for the accuracy of the translation.—S Marshall T/C 22:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic itself is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's never been in dispute. It doesn't address the reasons for deletion in any way.—S Marshall T/C 18:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it does. AfD is for articles not notable enough for inclusion, not for cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about cleanup, though. I know the discussions and consensus I linked to in my nomination statement are long and involved, and it's possible that you haven't read them carefully? It's about translation errors, which boils down to verifiability. The basic question in this AfD is can a Wikipedian verify that the script has produced an accurate translation of the source language text? I've already offered to withdraw the AfD nom if a Wikipedian will take responsibility for making sure it's accurate. I don't trust the script to do it. Google translate specifically disclaims any responsibility for it. Literally the entire content of the page is unverifiable unless and until someone with dual fluency in English and Spanish checks it. And I've linked to the very full and complete discussion in which the community decided that it would be disproportionate to ask editors with dual fluency to check them individually before deletion.—S Marshall T/C 18:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple. AfD is for deletion of articles on topics which are not notable. Even if this article was reduced to a stub the topic would still be notable. Its existence is clearly verifiable. Ergo there is no reason for deletion of the article and bringing it to AfD was unnecessary. You could have just reduced the thing to a stub and saved us the trouble of discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really right, though. In most cases topics that aren't notable shouldn't be deleted. They can typically be redirected somewhere; see User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things for a lot of nuanced thought on this. AfD is for content that's irretrievably bad: WP:TNT cases. In this case I would agree with you that a short, sourced stub or a redirection to Panama are reasonable outcomes, after the existing content has been deleted in accordance with the consensus.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. This is the English Wikipedia. Might be notable in Panama and the Spanish Wiki, but not here. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...SW3 5DL... that's... not at all how this works. TimothyJosephWood 20:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I showing 5k+ results for Policía Nacional de Panamá in news. There's another 100 for Panamanian National Police in English. The biggest issue that needs addressed here is whether the correct translation is Panamanian National Police or National Police of Panama, and which one of those should instead be a redirect. TimothyJosephWood 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...TimothyJosephWood. . .this. . .is how it works. WP:GNG. Find some we can all see and it can stay. Google searches don't count if you don't show the sources. And then perhaps improve the article. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is that your argument makes no sense on its face. Non-English sources are permitted on Wikipedia. If a subject is notable on the Spanish WP, its actually an argument in favor of the generally notability of the subject, because subjects are not selectively notable by language. TimothyJosephWood 20:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's notable. Yes, there are sources. Clearly, Wikipedia should have a well-sourced article on the police force in Panama, and that's never been in dispute ---- I said as much in my nomination statement. The argument for deletion is that this content --- this unverified, machine-translated garbage generated with a couple of mouse-clicks --- is not a useful step towards that goal. Between the two of you, you've already done far more towards generating the article the encyclopaedia should have than the "author" of this "content". Shouldn't we clear up his litter?—S Marshall T/C 21:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't see a good reason not to stubify with an expand tag at the very least, or to see if anyone wants to expand the portion that can be included in that stub, plus whatever sources we have that are in English. I have posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latin America to see if anyone is interested. The Panama WikiProject unfortunately seems pretty dead. TimothyJosephWood 21:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody disputes that the topic is (probably) notable. The problem is that the content is almost entirely worthless machine-translated garbage. Keeping the article up in this state actively damages the quality and usefulness of Wikipedia. Unless somebody wants to userfy and entirely rework it, it should be deleted. Sandstein 08:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Gaming Ltd

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

Fails WP:GNG, speedied before as advertising Kleuske (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, delete, and salt in view of history of recreating. I was unable to find an independent source about Meridian Gaming that I would consider reliable and could form the basis of a Wikipedia article. We can verify that this corporation exists and offers online gambling services, but that's it, and that's no basis for an article. I considered whether it was possible to redirect it but we don't have a list of online casinos and I don't feel motivated to create one.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree, since I see all over Wikipedia similar legit pages and articles about companies. There is no difference between those and this article. Company is well known at Balkans and pioneer in online gambling in that market. There is enough referrals and sources online to support authority of the corporation. Also, I do not agree with S Marshall that page should be moved to list of online casinos, since the Meridian Gaming Ltd is software development company and betting operator at first. —MissKnowItOl
- Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GNG. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This is a poorly written advert that apparently has a tendency to reappear. Wikipedia is not an advertising blog. Fails WP:GNG. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt I do not see enough secondary sources talking about this company. In addition, the repeated attempts to recreate it show that the aim is to promote the company. In addition, I just had a look at the history of Metioche (disambiguation) (See Special:Contributions/Sadlyraft) and there was a highly disruptive attempt to hijack the disambiguation article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the history of that page, I think we've got sufficient evidence for an SPI-case: See Special:Contributions/Alexdjix89 , Special:Contributions/Alexdjix89, Special:Contributions/37.18.184.12. Kleuske (talk) 16:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sadlyraft. Kleuske (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis and Shiites

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

Fails WP:NFILM, as "Aljaras Newspaper" (written in an RTL language) is not a reliable source. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NF. Redirect to director Abbas Fahdel. Short films have it difficult and being Iraqi film makes it even more so. Fine for this to be resurrected if and or when inclusion criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 00:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL8 and redirect to director Abbas Fahdel as a plausible WP:ATD-R, but the film does fail WP:NFP. — Sam Sailor 18:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Consortium of Tanzania

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like an advert. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no significant citation in independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kriya Sharir

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

I am dubious about the notability of this topic. Of the only two references offered, one is to an article written by the author of this page. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... the author of this page is also listed as an author on the other reference. The first ref proposes that it would be a sensible thing that 'allopaths' teach AYUSH to postgrads? wut? Roxy the dog. bark 17:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find very little about this and the simple use of the term pejorative and inaccurate term Allopath makes my hackles rise!!! This is a typical exemple of alternative medicine trying to homogenise terms to put homeopathy on the same level as "allopathy". The main page on Ayurveda does not mention this branch so I doubt that it can be that important. Maybe suggest that the author adds a section about "his" branch first. --Domdeparis (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response: We have now added many relevant citations and have removed all ambiguous terms. Bachelor of Ayurveda Medicine and Surgery refers to this subject. We don't mind if the page gets deleted, but we are curious to know why the wikipedia community is against alternative medicine. Why is 'Ayurveda' Page a part of a series on Alternative and pseudo-medicine? When Wikipedia can include all sorts of distorted forms of Yoga into Wikipedia pages, (for example, Dog Yoga, why can't it include Ayurveda? Both these streams of knowledge originated in India and both share many theories and principles in common.

When I used the term 'important' in one of the revisions, one of the users asked me to remove it. I understand the reason very well: it may reflect my bias. But when the Wikipedia runs a title saying that "this article is a pert of the series on Pseudo-medicine", does it not reflect the bias this entire community has?

Comment Wikipedia has a large number of articles about alternative medicine but tries to adhere to the principal that the information must be presented in a neutral manner which owing to the lack of proof of the efficacy of certain methods and beliefs over and above the placebo effet, for their practitioners or followers or believers this can seem like bias but is just the application of neutrality. No one is saying that this page should not exist because it is alternative but because it needs to be proved to be notable Domdeparis (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~[reply]

Hi @Patwardhankishor: if you wish to modify a comment on a talk page and no one has answered it yet you are free to do so but if someone has already replied it is better to redact the text, here is the page that explains this WP:REDACT, you do this by using the following code <s>...</s> or <del>...</del>. This helps anyone reading the discussion page follow the conversation without looking up the diffs. And please remember to sign your comments. Thanks Domdeparis (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will keep this in mind. Many Universities in India award degrees (PG and PhD) in Kriya Sharir. Many universities have a full-fledged departments named after this specialty [39]. I don't know how this is less notable than Dog Yoga. How many universities award degrees in Dog Yoga? Thanks. Patwardhankishor (talk) Comment I too dont understand why kriya sharir is not taking under consideration by wikipedia..as it is the basic most subject which deals with physiology as per ayurveda perspective..and how can anyone treat the patient without knowing the physiology.it is out of my understanding.So many relevant rsearches has been done by kriya sharir scholars which have contribution in modern science also.and I really believe that there should be a page of kriya sharir so dat people could understand the basics of ayurveda in light of modern science which will serve the need of its globalisation Anam tamimi (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Anam Tamimi[reply]

Weak keep, but only if we can find some content. At this point it's just general information on Ayurveda, DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and apparently has WP:COI. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The way it's written almost sounds like WP:OR. Also concerned on the COI. Unsure if it can be fixed South Nashua (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

QuestFusion

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

This seems like a pure work of promotion. Not sure that the sources provided show it meets the WP:NORG criteria. Of the 12 sources provided 5 are written by the owner of the company, "prweb" "questfusion.hatenablog" "totugalogic" siliconcape" and "entrepreneur". 2 are interviews with 2 or 3 1-line questions and lots of PR blurb as answers "supercrew" and "thumbtack". 1 is a blog "startcatchup". 1 is a podcast interview "epodcastnetwork". 2 are business directories and nothing more "angel.co" and "crunchbase". the only one that seems to be neutral is "marketersmedia" Domdeparis (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For a small company it has enough web references. I'd say we keep it. "Solana Beach Award" is enough for this kind of company. Dortar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Note - This editor is the creator of the article. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability has not been established. Sources are a collection of PR guff. Wikipedia is not a directory for business listings. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not one good secondary source available about the company. Notability cannot be inherited from mentions in an article about the owner. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Vitug

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

read like promo and advertising. With most sources linked to his books or companies (not to himself). notability is questionable. The Banner talk 14:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

reads like a bio of a living person but needs more improvement or deletions of unimportant info. So being an author of a book in itself isn't notable but could an author of a book be considered notable if the book citations and companies have some notability in its niche? 47.18.20.11 (talk) 07:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made to remove information that aren't verifiable such as high school involvement and other areas that may sound promotional rather than informational. There's information available online but most information about the subject is tied to the book and projects but sourced from reputable sites such as The New York Times, Inc, Business Insider and the colleges attended. JMark714 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:WWIN. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Database Console Commands (Transact-SQL)

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

Regurgitation of Microsoft documentation. Wikipedia is not a reference manual, nor a how-to. Mikeblas (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a manual. Probably many years out of date by now anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. WP:WWIN Not a reference manual

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The discussion is leaning towards "delete" but there just isn't enough participation to make a conclusive determination. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Blas

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

Delete. WP:BLP of an artist and writer, which just asserts that he exists and references that entirely to primary sources like his own website and his staff profile on the website of his own employer with no evidence of reliable source coverage in media shown at all. As always, an artist is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because he exists; he must be reliably sourceable as passing WP:CREATIVE for something for an article to become earned. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Entry has been updated with citations that demonstrate writing about the artist in major publications (and reliable sources) such as The New York Times and especially in principal art publications such as Artforum, ArtReview, and Frieze. Also cites various projects at major museums - Aoh5 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial and unconvincing given the sources are simple announcements and mentions, there's nothing seriously convincing since there's nothing for a significant article as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I feel that the pieces at ArtForum and Good Magazine arguably meet WP:BASIC by themselves. Some of the other sources here are of lesser reliability or are not in-depth coverage of the artist of his work, but I believe that, carefully sorted, there's enough. --joe decker ^talk 03:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Tiwari

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

As explained on Talk:Lok Tiwari in more detail, I could not find one useable sources from the {{Find sources}} links for news, newspapers, HighBeam, JSTOR, scholar, and the WP reference custom search. From a general web search, there are a lot of social media, blog, Q&A interviews (that appear to be duplicated in other sources), and sources that are not meeting the reliable, secondary or independent sources guidelines. I am not finding enough to prove notability per WP:GNG, and believe this is likely a case of WP:TOOSOON. —CaroleHenson (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He is renown social worker and businessman among Nepalese in the USA. I am improving this article. User:HariKrishna123

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CaroleHenson (as expressed on Talk:Lok Tiwari#Contested deletion). No notability (in the sense of WP:GNG or WP:BIO) that is supported by independent reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talk2chun (talk • contribs) 19:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is renown social worker and businessman among Nepalese in the USA. There are a lot of sources in Nepali language and I am improving this article with english sources. User:HariKrishna123

Keep Some sources are ok to prove his notability but not enough. Need to improve but not to delete. User:Kingnewyork 18:20, 13 January 2017 (EST)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not provide significant coverage. For example this restaurant review in Washington Post is very brief coverage. The other sources are not really what I call reliable sources (and are interviews). The rest of the sources are affiliated to the subject. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note:From this, it seems the page creator may have a conflict of interest. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (soft) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pantea Haghighi

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

Not notable. A quick Google search shows that she does not have any notability of her own. Susana Hodge (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only one WP:RS that is significantly about the article subject, instead of the works she has curated. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Consensus is to delete as non notable.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Gray (Author)

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)

Non-notable author lacking non-trivial support. References are for the most part brief mentions, quotes, or WP:PRIMARY in nature. Editor that created article has disclosed they are associated "employer, client, and[/or other] affiliation" on article talk page. Page is more of a vanity/advertisement page than an encyclopedic article. reddogsix (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dave is a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration. Plus, the page was created in compliance with Wikipedia's paid inclusion policy so that should not be in consideration here. The writing here is absolutely in keeping with Wikipedia style...there is no vanity or slant to how the information is presented. Karmaclub (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Sockpuppet !vote stricken.[reply]

Comment - Please indicate how being , "a well-known thought leader and author in the field of business communication and collaboration" meets any of the criteria for inclusion listed in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography. I was in the process of adding even more sources and citations to the page, but we are now detoured here. Karmaclub (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speaking at a design think tank is not enough for notability. Also fails WP:AUTHOR. The article is written like an ad anyway. Laurdecl ^talk 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: See my comment above. Karmaclub (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising the Keep comment simply says "He's well known and notable" but not actually showing it, especially to at least convince us better from the currently unacceptable article, since it's simply PR. Like with articles, the user is allowed to make improvements but it won't be a guarantee of keeping it, and "The sources present quite clearly show that he meets Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability and Biography" is not showing our actual policies accepting it (for example WP:NOT), hence not the same thing. Overall, there's enough to suggest there's simply not the significant notability needed. SwisterTwister talk 00:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Took me a while to check the copious "sources" and assess the article, which gives all the appearance of of a reasonable article. However, the sources are not truly reliable and the text of the article feels like a PROMO. Finally, the keep !vote above is that of the self-declared COI editor that created it — Iadmc ♫^talk 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as would be satisfied if WP:RS existed. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just finished reading Liminal Thinking and really enjoyed it. I'd like this page to stay so I can follow the author. Mi5meadow (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mi5meadow: That amounts to WP:ILIKEIT and is not really a valid argument at AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

INGOT Brokers

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

fails WP:CORP. looks like an advert. only 2 articles link to this small company. LibStar (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sufficient to support notability - no IRSS jumped out at me. Nearly everything online seems to be in-industry promo-release type material. Aoziwe (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middleton Park, Yagoona

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

fails WP:GNG. only primary sources provided. Parks are not inherently notable, nor do I see it being notable for hosting an amateur team. also whilst adding ", Yagoona" might be a disambiguation there are other Middleton Parks in the world so a redirect will cause confusion. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, probably to Yagoona, New South Wales#Parks where it is mentioned already. The brief discussion and the three references can be merged to there. We should always be looking for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion and this is a good option here. Also, I sort of think parks are inherently notable, and this is more than a tiny corner park, it has two regulation football fields and is a public attraction that is going to be listed in newspaper events columns, etc. If merged, the redirect left behind will not "cause confusion" (or please explain, how would it cause confusion?) --do ncr am 23:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing to merge given it's simply a few sentences, anything that could be simply added to anything else, what's here is simply a guide listing and we never accept those in policy. SwisterTwister talk 03:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose - as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neill Park. Aoziwe (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing makes this park notable, it's WP:MILL. MB 21:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the "Delete" votes contains any reason why this should not be redirected/merged. Redirect/merge is simply better than Delete. It is certainly possible for a reader to be looking for the Middleton Park in Yagoona; they do not know the obscure Wikipedia rules/processes about whether something is deemed Wikipedia-notable or not. I voted "Merge" above and I do think it is marginally notable, as many parks are. Leaving a redirect behind permits re-creation of article with edit history intact if/when there is more coverage/material/sources on the topic. --do ncr am 22:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

nice try but the consensus is clearly delete, if people want redirect/merge they would say that. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You come across as glib/gleeful about winning something here, rather than civil. Would you mind telling me why you think a redirect is not appropriate, please? --do ncr am 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in WP:CONSENSUS. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which states that quality of argument matters. This is not a majority vote, and it should not be a wp:BATTLEGROUND. It remains that neither LibStar nor any other editor has an argument (not a valid argument IMO) against there being a redirect/merge. --do ncr am 18:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sure it's not a majority vote but so far no one agrees with you, so you're clutching at straws to say you have a winning consensus here. LibStar (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Normally I'd be happy with a redirect, but is this truly a plausible search term? Is anyone going to type in "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in a blind search? In the highly unlikely event that this park becomes unambiguously notable in the future and we need the history, it can be undeleted easily enough. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
- It is perfectly likely that someone would type in "Middleton Park" and then they would see that, among suggested drop-down options, there is "Middleton Park, Yagoona". And/or they might get to the primary Middleton Park article and find their way to Middleton Park (disambiguation) and thence to it. --doncram 21:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I think we have to agree to disagree on this and let the closing admin sort things out; I think that the scenario you outline is pretty unlikely. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I usually prefer a merge/redirect, but in this case there is absolutely nothing much to merge. I also do not prefer a redirect as the argument for a plausible search term is no longer valid with the advent of Google's semantic search. Someone searching "Middleton Park, Yagoona" in Google will get Yagoona as the first search result. Considering that redirects are costly, I will go with a delete. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Brooks

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

Non-notable up-and-coming golfer. Orange Mike | Talk 00:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way WP:TOOSOON, and non-viable sourcing. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with 69, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per WP:TOOSOON. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable... yet. Ira Leviton (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGOLF Eagleash (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venmurasu

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)

Per WP:GNG, I could not find significant coverage of this book (or books) in any reliable sources. I propose it be redirected to B. Jeyamohan. Odie5533 (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a book series written in the Tamil language by noted author Jeyamohan. Practically every one in Tamil literary world is aware of this work. I have included 15 references already. Please state what you consider as 'reliable' sources before placing anything for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to B. Jeyamohan per nom.. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify on what basis you are deleting. What sources did you check? I have given references to major magazines that discuss this 10 -volume work. India Today, The Hindu and Swarajya are major Indian newspapers and magazines that discuss this. There are Youtube videos discussing this work. You are ordering the deletion of a work without paying any attention to the references on Tamil literary scape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 06:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyamohan writes the Venmurasu novel sequence on his website and eventually it gets published in the printed format .The entire novel sequence is available online, you can verify it in the below link. Also the printed version is available for sale in the publishers website. "Kizhakku pathippagam" publishes the book. I recommend contacting the publishers for confirmation. You can find their contact on the bottom of their website.

Venmurasu online: http://www.jeyamohan.in/%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81#.WIRrC7YrKAy

Publishers website: https://www.nhm.in/shop/9789384149093.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabumrgm (talk • contribs) 08:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt the work exists. I do not believe it is notable by the GNG because I was unable to find any significant coverage of the book in reliable secondary sources. Having youtube videos or multiple links to his sites does not impart notability on the subject. A simple google search for the story returns only 9,000 hits. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--TaPari (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wiki, I am not sure you realize the volume, literary quality and readership of this all time massive work ever - 'Venmurasu' which is happening in Tamil literary context. This work which is based on the Indian epic Mahabharatha, have detailed characterization of almost all the characters related to Hindu mythology.

The writer updates one chapter everyday in his website www.jeyamohan.in from January 1, 2014. More than 900 chapters have been written so far and the readership of this epic have always increased or maintained good numbers ever since it was started 3 years ago. Am sure there will be more than 5000 unique readers on a daily basis continuously for the past 3 years (you may get exact numbers from the writer or you may refer here -https://www.similarweb.com/website/jeyamohan.in#overview). This is a quite a feat for the work of its size and that too in Tamil literary context where you may not find many readers for a literary work.

Since the work was in Tamil language and readers belong to Tamil native, obviously you wont find many articles/links/reviews in English (Though, many links have been cited by fellow contributors) and is the reason for 'only 9000 hits' when you search for Venmurasu in English font. Please try out searching for this work in Tamil font ’வெண்முரசு’ which returns 86,300 results in google as of today(I wouldn't agree measuring a literary work's importance through google search results. Giving this 86k results example just as a fact!). As a matter of fact, being a regular reader of 'Venmurasu', I have never googled it since I directly read it through authors website.

Not only the author, the readers also quite actively engaged with this work continuously and you can see the readers response to the work here: http://venmurasudiscussions.blogspot.in/ -a dedicated blogspot to save the readers response on Venmurasu which is owned and run by the writer. There are already 3636 unique letters published in this site for the 900+ chapters of Venmurasu in the last 3 years. You can find the readers letters about the work on almost all days ever since the work was started. This shows the kind of impact the work had on its readers.

Apart from the written text, most chapters of Venmurasu is accompanied by a digital painting relevant to the story's plot. This is done by the Illustrator-Shanmugavel as mentioned in the wiki page. You can see the paintings in his website (http://www.shanmuga.net/venmurasu/book1/). Paintings of first four novels are only updated in his website. But, you can find paintings for other novels also by directly going through each chapter.

Still if you want to delete the page, I can say you are unaware of what you are doing and it will be a big misfortune for Tamil literary readers and Mahabaratha's followers spread across the world. Thanks.

comment added by TaPari

--TaPari (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what are considered to be the reliable secondary sources. There is a meeting of 35 scholars happening every month in Chennai to discuss this great work (till now this work has crossed 12000 pages, spanning across 13 novles). Please refer the link https://epicvenmurasu.wordpress.com/ for the detailed articles written on this work. These articles are the result of the discussions happened in that meeting. Please refer Chennai Meetings for more details. These meetings are happening from May 2015. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunachalam maharajan (talk • contribs) 11:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some dude's wordpress blog is not a reliable source. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is very doubtful if any of those recommending deletion even looked at Tamil language or Indian sources. I guess they want to see European/American sources like Jstor, Nytimes or The Guardian. The number of entries in English Google are not indicative of notability in Tamil context. It's a very patronizing way of looking at non-English/non-European works of art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhusam (talk • contribs) 17:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  °Tamil Writer Jeyamohan is writing the Indian's great Epic Mahabharatha, as a novel sequence. He has written twelve books on this series so far and all are updated in his web site

( link:- http://www.jeyamohan.in/%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%A3%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81#.WIYwERt97IU ),

out of which ten books are released as paperpack by Kizhakku publishers. You can search for the books "venmurasu" in the link provided here  ( link:-https://www.nhm.in/shop/search.php?mode=search&page=1&keep_https=yes  )

You can also refer the below link. It came on Tamil's leading newspaper Dinamani during 2014 ( Dinamani is Tamil daily newspaper. The newspaper was established in 1933 and is owned by The New Indian Express Group )

http://www.dinamani.com/all-editions/edition-chennai/chennai/2014/jan/23/%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%B0%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%8A%E0%AE%9F%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4-%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%B3%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AE%AE-825484.html

This link is from Straitstimes ( an English-language daily broadsheet newspaper based in Singapore currently owned by Singapore Press Holdings (SPH))

http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/novelist-once-begged-around-india

Below two links says the reviews of the novell during its book release function happened on November 2014.These updates are from Tamil's popular daily newspapers / Online news

Dinamani:- ( Dinamani is Tamil daily newspaper. The newspaper was established in 1933 and is owned by The New Indian Express Group )

http://www.dinamani.com/cinema/2014/nov/10/நானும்-கமலும்-செய்ய-முடியாத-1009873.html

The Hindu ( Tamil ) ( The Hindu (Tamil) (Tamil: தி இந்து) is a Tamil daily newspaper published by The Hindu Group)

http://m.tamil.thehindu.com/general/literature/கூடவே-பயணிக்கும்-வெண்முரசு/article6469421

http://m.indiaglitz.com/kamal-and-illayaraja-on-mahabharatha-novel-tamil-news-118282.html

below page has the reviews for the Venmurasu Novel sequences

http://solvanam.com/?p=35582

The YouTube link given below has all the reviews for the Venmurasu Novell. Reviews are given my Veteran writers in Tamil litrature and creators in Tamil Film Industry

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-Nq4wl4QCG5DFngFPb6nGA

Please refer the links above and keep the venmurasu wiki page always active. Thank you

Hi See below the reference to Venmurasu from The Hindu, a national newspaper in India. http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/Jeyamohan-says-he-turned-down-Padma-award/article14020899.ece

This link below from an interview of the Author published in Singapore. http://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/novelist-once-begged-around-india

One more link from Leading Indian news paper http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sharad-joshis-family-tamil-writer-say-no-to-padma-honour/

Leading Tamil/Indian cinema personalities on the novel http://www.indiaglitz.com/kamal-and-illayaraja-on-mahabharatha-novel-tamil-news-118282.html

it is not some dude's Wordpress blog it is the blog/website of the writer himself which is one of the leading websites in India. (global ranking 252,017 and India Ranking 13000 as per www.similarweb.com) I request you to consult someone from Tamil wiki team to check and verify this than rejecting this. Thanks.

@Odie, The wikipedia guidelines for reliable secondary sources says Mainstream Newspapers, Magazines and Journals including electronic media could be used as reliable secondary source. It is clearly stated in the guidelines that the references can be from any language not necessarily English. Reference from major Indian newspaper has already been given. I'm here just highlighting the authors of the articles and opinions.

http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/sharad-joshis-family-tamil-writer-say-no-to-padma-honour/ - This article written by the Indian Express editorial team mentions Venmurasu and the nature of the work.

http://www.dinamani.com/cinema/2014/nov/10/%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A9%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%95%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%8D-%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%86%E0%AE%AF%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AF-%E0%AE%AE%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%AF%E0%AE%BE%E0%AE%A4-1009873.html - In this interview, Ilaiyaraaja, a Padhma bushan award(third highest civilian ward given by Republic of India), holder opines on the work.

Are they not reliable sources as per GNG? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabumrgm (talk • contribs) 10:09, January 25, 2017 (UTC)

This is serial of books, the story based on Mahabharatam.the first volume muthal kanal started on 3 years back, now 12 volumes are finished nearly 12000 pages story.The book was not completed yet, that why no major functions are conducted.But it is important book on Tamil.Tamil literature world deeply listening this book serial. No one give major positive and negative comments, because it effort writter sprit. In near future many people celebrat this book.the person,"Who Suggest to delete this book", has no knowledge about current Tamil literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conboy19 (talk • Bold textcontribs) 06:44, January 26, 2017 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure who all I am replying to, but I did look over the sources provided. Many of them are reliable sources and I don't dispute this. They do not, however, offer significant coverage of the subject, that is, the novel itself. They mainly cover the writer, which is why I recommend the article be redirected to his article. Note that his own blog, an interview he gave, and short blurbs do not support notability either. To support notability, they must be secondary sources offering significant coverage of the novel. The only one I saw that qualifies is the source provided below by K.e.coffman, and I can not confirm if the writing of the author "Jataayu" is reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Trying to correct for cultural bias, and admittedly going out on a limb do to so, Seems to be perhaps the major work of a major author. I can at least verify that the series is in Worldcat[40]. I do not have the language ability to do more than that, & there's the added complexity of possible alternate transcriptions. I suggest the contributor add the Tamil titles of the individual parts, at least. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author does have an article. I don't think it's a cultural bias here because Tamil newspapers simply aren't writing significant articles about the novel. I don't dispute the work exists. I just don't think it's notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of all the keep !votes, only one of them (DGG's) doesn't appear to be canvassed. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- this is a well referenced article on an apparently notable book that is somewhat of a cultural phenomenon. This review "Venmurasu: A Sublime Literary Masterpiece In The Making" seems to confirm it; this appears to be a legit review. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•To the ones who argues for keeping, I feel that probably, if the Outline section of the article is given any sources this dispute wouldn’t have raised.

Mr Odie5533, has no dispute about the existence of the novel or the reliability of the sources given. I believe he just consider that most of the sources cover the efforts for the novel by the writer, appreciations, neglecting the content of the novel itself in a great manner, which is why he suggests that the article should be redirected to the author’s. I agree with it and in that case the content is not supporting notability.

But @Odie5533 , with all due respect, I should say that those were statements produced from the pure ignorance about the prevailing nature of the Tamil literary world. One could not find this large amount of data or opinions anywhere about another particular novel in Tamil.

I can see that you could find no reference about the content in any international journals or so (JSTOR, Shodhganga…). I could not much comment on that, but simply say that it is due to the prevailing research oriented attitude in institutions here. We see for a book to be acknowledged here takes even decades. But a tremendous effort like “Venmurasu” shall not be left unseen for that matter. I can also see the hesitations in the words who argue for keeping this. As a student of literature and reader of the novel, I knew that anything they say much will be exaggerations (for those who has not read) because of its majesty in nature.

Wiki norms: If you still are unsatisfied and do not take this as an argument, I would strongly suggest to take the help of Tamil wiki experts. There are much evident articles in ‘solvanam’ and ‘venmurasu discussions’ links about the content of the novel you seek for. I don’t think that just lacking the ability to understand the language, in the given links, would probably lead to deletion or redirection. As mentioned,it’s a major work of a major author. Keep. Srini94 (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kungumam - A leading Tamil Weekly Interview about the Novel https://www.facebook.com/pg/venmurasu/photos/?tab=album&album_id=1570223559866457 (Its prited weekly ,not possible to give Online link ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arangasamy (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Can you please specify the criteria for what constitutes an important literary work? As per your previous comments, it seems like coverage in a major media outlet about the work (and not just the author) is an important criteria.

If so, then this article alone will satisfy the criteria: (1) This is an article about the work (Venmurasu) and not just the author (Jeyamohan) (2) Swarajya is a major news outlet in India. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarajya_(magazine) (3) The novel release function was attended by some of the top personalities (Kamal Haasan and Ilaiyaraja) of Tamil Nadu, thereby providing enough credibility and legitimacy for the endeavor.

It is also covered by one of the largest networks in Southern India (Star Vijay), which has a 12 million viewership; The video url of the book release function posted here was not just a *mere* Youtube link; It is a web stream capture of the TV broadcast of this major TV network (please see the Logo of the TV network on the top-right hand corner of the video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg

See links below: Swarajya Article: https://swarajyamag.com/culture/venmurasu-a-sublime-literary-masterpiece-in-the-making Star Vijay TV viewership - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Vijay http://www.televisionpost.com/television/sun-tv-leads-viewership-charts-across-genres-barc/ http://www.afaqs.com/news/story/44063_BARC-releases-first-set-of-TV-ratings Media personalities/stars who attended the function and released the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Haasan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaiyaraaja

It will be good if you can provide an explanation of why this article and the magazine (Swarajya) does not fit the Wikipedia criteria? More links to news media coverage were provided by other Wiki users. Only if the clear criteria is provided, readers can provide adequate sources. Badabheem (talk)badabheem —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kgsat (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Odie5533
I am referring the notability guide.

A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
As per the guide above, books have their own guideline which need to be followed

Following is the notability guideline for books in particular
A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
The book has won a major literary award.
The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.
The book is, or has been, the subject of instruction at two or more schools, colleges, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.
The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. The five preceding criteria do not necessarily apply to books excluded by the threshold standards, and do not apply to books not yet published.

Evidence for item 1 I have provided 11 pieces of evidence below(as against minimum requirement of two). Also, the notability guideline doesn't state such reviews need to be in english only. The guideline only states such reviews need to be non-trivial.

Evidences for item 5 f the author is historically significant, then his books merit a separate article. The author is considered one among the eminent writers in India and he was awarded one of the top civilian awards Padma Shree by the Government of India. The author refused the award citing neutrality of his views. Further more, by sheer volume of his work, considering the number of published pages both in paper and online alone make the author a historically significant person.

Wiki page for Venmurasu in Tamil Language

Winner of Leading Tamil Literary award Look at the following Wiki page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tamil_Literary_Garden. This wiki page is about a literary award part sponsored by University of Toronto. Jeyamohan was awarded the best author prize in 2015. So, there exists a wiki page that meets all the notability guide lines. The wiki page is accepted as a valid source of information. The wiki page pertains to literary awards. There is mention of Mr. Jeyamohan winning the award in 2015.

Verifiability In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.[1] When reliable sources disagree, maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight.

Verifiability doesn't mean publication in English only. Major reviews published in leading Tamil language newspapers and video reviews in youtube are valid sources for verifiability. You have failed also to take into account that such newspapers and the eminient personalities providing video reviews have a valid wiki entry.

@Odie5533 If you still insist on deleting the seperate page for this book series, please give a definitive answer citing notability guidelines

Why is not Jeyamohan an author of historical significance?
Why are not the evidences submitted so far in terms of reviews from independent publications not sufficient to satisfy the condition laid down by rule 1 mention above in the notability guideline for books and verifiability rules of wikipedia?

Thanks

Satish (London)

Kgsat (talk) 21:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, why are so many of the Tamil writers only discussing the work on YouTube? Why don't they write articles about the great and famous novel? The articles you've posted either do not deal with the novel in in-depth coverage, or are an interview with the author and so do not support notability, or they are a very short announcement style article that don't go in-depth about it. Above was posted a Facebook link to a Swarajya article. Although I don't speak a word of Tamil, I noticed the caption for post says it is an interview. If this is so, then it too does not support notability. Frankly I am not willing to concede that point 5 for the book notability criteria is met. I do not believe the author rises to that level of historical significance at this time, and so everything he has ever penned does not derive notability from him and instead must show notability themselves.

For criteria 1, what I'd look for is for one reviewer out there, of the supposedly countless academics, journalists, and critics who are reading the novel, to have written a single review of some of the novel's chapters and get it published it an independent publication. Does such a review or critique exist? Or are the sources shown, of interviews, brief announcements, and YouTube sit-downs, all that exist? --Odie5533 (talk) 07:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeyamohan is an acclaimed writer and this is one his most stellar work to date and is being followed and reviewed across the globe. There are several Tamil language newpapers and sites which refers these. Sevaral inputs have been provided. This is being removed just because someone complained?

Msathia (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Venmurasu is a significant effort in modern tamil literature. The great epic Mahabharatha is being rewritten as a modern tamil novel by Jayamohan. I am a reader in tamil literature and everyday reading this. Deleting an article on Venmurasu simply because the great work is being ignored by major english and tamil magaznes is absurd. On the contrary viki pedia should make it possible to enable many readers to notice thisIf Viki pedia deletes this it is a great injustice to Tamil world by viki pedia. By A common man A.Ramakrishnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.50.19.47 (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above evidences you can see below the videos from the Launch of the first 5 books in the series. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg&feature=youtu.be You may argue that the function was organised by the Author and his friends, but look at the number of public participants. They cannot be 'arranged'. This is considered one of the major book launch events in Tamilnadu and in most parts of India which was telecast in Star Vijay TV (part of the international Star media group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Vijay ). I hope that shows the significance of Venmurasu in addition to the other evidences. The page itself may not be significant for someone not concerned with India or Tamil culture but it would help millions of Indians and Tamils who use English as second language and as langage of cross-cultural conversations. It would be a great service to that effect keeping with some of the core principles of Wikipedia. Thanks for looking into this guys. You all do great service to humanity and we much appreciate the work being done and especially your commitment to having thr right content. Cvalex (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Cyril Alex[reply]

Keep In the Venmurasu Novel introduction video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zctRnEVukXg&feature=youtu.be ) you can see Mr. Ashokamitran as the chair person and he is regarded as the foremost literary figure in Tamil.(*see Pulitzer Prize winner Aravind Adiga's remarks on Ashokamitran http://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/the-boss-will-see-you-now/285083). Do you think it is possible if Jeyamohan is not a person of historical significance , all these important people will gather to introduce his "Venmurasu" navel? . This page should not be removed. If you have further questions and do not understand Tamil language and its landscape, please add additional admins who are well versed in this area. Bala.TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.190.157.9 (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:- I am not sure how we can measure the vernacular Literary work based on the numbers of search in the english , This is one of the marvelous work ever read in Tamil or English. I understand Wiki rules needs to have the secondary reference i believe the above notes are given reasonable proof the work is existing and followed by enough people. Whether the wiki page about Venmurasu is there are not that is nothing to do with popular tamil contemporary works worthiness. I felt Wiki follows quality not the quantity of people follows. Please keep it , it is worth one in Wiki.-PP

Keep: - The following are verifiable facts. 1. The author has won several awards for his literary contribution. The Indian government has awarded him a Padmashri award (which the author refused). He has been the recipient of Iyal award. 2. The author is a popular screenwriter and has contributed to several Tamil films including Angadith Theru, Kadal, Papanasam and several others. 3. Sheer length of the work makes it a notable one. This is a work of epic proportions that has run into more than 1200 chapters and 10000 pages. More than 10 parts of the book has been published. It is expected that this work will run into further 1800 chapters and will probably end up having 30000 pages. (This is the author's stated intention). 4. The content of the work is a retelling of Mahabharatha, an ancient Indian epic. 5. Widely popular in Tamil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rvsubbu (talk • contribs) 18:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Reply to Odie5533 - I had added 3 reviews of the book series on the online magazine Solvanam, please check the references section. There is also a 7-part review of the first book by critic and poet Marabinmaindan Muthiah. These do satisfy your minimum notability requirements. Madhusam (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Google News results for Krishnan Ganesh".

[2] "Google News results for Sijo Kuruvilla George".

[3] ttp://www.rediff.com/money/2003/apr/21spec1.htm

[4] ttp://www.caravanmagazine.in/reportage/the-tempest-prannoy-radhika-roy-ndtv

[5] ttp://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/sebi-initiates-action-against-ndtv-prannoy-roy-radhika-roy-rrpr-holdings-116061600319_1.html

[6] ttps://www.grammy.com/blogs/first-time-grammy-nominee-mack-wilds

[7] ttp://tracegospel.tv/music/tim-bowman-jr-earns-first-grammy-nomination-listen/

[8] ttp://uproxx.com/hitfix/salaam-remi-talks-grammy-nominated-one-in-the-chamber-nas-and-jennifer-hudson/

[9] ttp://www.billboard.com/articles/news/grammys/6785992/2016-grammy-nominations-surprises

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penal Code (Malaysia)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relic (Dungeons & Dragons)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regalia of Might}}