Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. SOFTDELETE per very low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hoyda yarim

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

Neither the article's content nor its references demonstrate that the tune is notable. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.--Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --Samizambak (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY_0L3h9Lxo Tarkan --Samizambak (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:09, 8 April 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 Hong Kong T20 Blitz. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 02:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Island United

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

Not notable enough to have article. GreenCricket (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nil participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hong Kong T20 Blitz. All five of the teams participating in this obscure league are linked from the article, implying that articles should be made. However, since none of them have notability extending beyond the notability of the league, it would make more sense to add a paragraph about each in the page on the league, with that paragraph serving as the section redirect target for links from each named team. bd2412 T 20:47, 16 April 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 At the Drive-In. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

¡Alfaro Vive, Carajo! (EP)

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

(Serious nomination) Recently created. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No references at all. This needs to redirect to the artist page. Anon IPs have been reinstating the article without any edit summaries. Karst (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to At the Drive-In. As it stands, article makes no claim to notability. Ifnord (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to At the Drive-In; not independently notable. There's nothing to merge as the article lists no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to At the Drive-In per above. Aoba47 (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I concur that there is nothing to merge here. A redirect leaves future options open. MartinJones (talk) 17:59, 22 April 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivikraman

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

No references and no credible claim of significance to satisfy film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This stub can be brought up to standards in seven days to satisfy film notability guidelines or deleted. Just tagging it as needing improvement isn't enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:00, 15 April 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) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Catherine Derek

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

Delete: as non-notable writer and utterly non-notable performer. Quis separabit? 01:07, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has plenty of credits to her name but not notable enough to warrant an individual article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:08, 8 April 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; see WP:SOFTDELETE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trivikraman

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

No references and no credible claim of significance to satisfy film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This stub can be brought up to standards in seven days to satisfy film notability guidelines or deleted. Just tagging it as needing improvement isn't enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:00, 15 April 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. joe decker ^talk 17:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Milbank

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

I find no substantial, independent coverage in reliable sources meeting WP:GNG other than the WalesOnline article listed in the references. Largoplazo (talk) 02:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial indepdent coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Insufficient sources available to meet WP:NPOL, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 22:58, 14 April 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CAPITOL STANDARD (Magazine)

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

I find no substantial coverage of this magazine, at least not online. At most, it's mentioned as the company founded by Ursula Lauriston in articles that cover her, and it's mentioned on websites citing those websites' mention in the magazine. Fails notability. Largoplazo (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 03:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 04:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur with nom. Insufficient coverage in independent sources to establish notability. MB 22:59, 16 April 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. I must assume this obviously, almost frivolously useless article is an attempt at trolling by its creator HistoricMN44. Please don't do this again. Sandstein 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An Act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices

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

This is a non-notable bill. It was proposed on February 13, 2013 and I can find no evidence that the bill was even passed. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Energy Policy Act of 2005 per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In general, I think it is best to discuss amendments to statutes within the primary article for that statute. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my vote to delete per TJRC's analysis below. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I take no position on the bill's notability, but the article says it passed. The lede includes "(H.R. 767; Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF))"; the cite to "Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF)" means it became Public Law no. 113-69 (i.e., 113th Congress, 69th public law). And the congress.gov page at H.R. 767 says "Latest Action: 12/26/2013 Became Public Law No: 113-69."

That being said, Congress enacts a lot of laws; this is just number 69 in a series of 295 statutes enacted by the 113th Congress. Not all enacted laws are WikiWorthy; the overwhelming majority of them are not. All of them get at least some media coverage, so it's easy to be misled into a sense of notability, just from searching. I have no particular position of whether this particular bill and statute is notable. TJRC (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Okay, I just took a look at the bill, and it's remarkably trivial. All it does is amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to replace the names of the field offices taking part in a pilot with more complete versions of the field office's names: "Rawlins, Wyoming" becomes "Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming"; "Buffalo, Wyoming" becomes "High Plains District Office, Wyoming"; and so forth. It also apparently changed one field office, from Miles City, Montana to the Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana (which is in Billings, a much larger city), apparently because it was a busier field office. That's it; that's the entire content of the bill and statute. See the text at Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 113–69 (text) (PDF) and compare with the § 365(d) it replaced in Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States) 109–58 (text) (PDF), if you want to check. It's not even worth rolling up into Energy Policy Act of 2005.

old text:

(1) Rawlins, Wyoming.

(2) Buffalo, Wyoming.

(3) Miles City, Montana.

(4) Farmington, New Mexico.

(5) Carlsbad, New Mexico.

(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs, Colorado.

(7) Vernal, Utah.

Replacement text:

(1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming.

(2) High Plains District Office, Wyoming.

(3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana.

(4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico.

(5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico.

(6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colorado.

(7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.

Delete. TJRC (talk) 23:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:48, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell

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

T-Bag is not a notable fictional character. Most of the references are to Wikipedia itself -- articles for individual episodes of the Prison Break series. The remaining external references are not substantial coverage; one is just a picture and caption (no article!). This is just fan-cruft. Mikeblas (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's probably just about enough out there to pass WP:GNG. See [1][2][3][4] Spiderone 19:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Main character throughout the series is enough to clearly meet WP:GNG - Galatz ^Talk 20:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable character. Passes WP:GNG. - AffeL (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable character. Appears in every episode of Prison Break, and the only character to appear in Breakout Kings.Alligators1974 (talk) 22:38, 14 April 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 Hinsdale Central High School. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hinsdale Central Athletics

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

Unneeded content fork created without any discussion ~~subject~~. No indication of any notability whatsoever. John from Idegon (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to Hinsdale Central High School I concur that there is no independent notability for this topic. The material should be merged / redirected to Hinsdale Central High School, the source of this content fork. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:59, 15 April 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 Renee Young. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered with Renee Young

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monday Night War: WWE vs. WCW, this is a web-only, paywalled series that only airs on the WWE Network. It's essentially a chat series featuring pro wrestlers and, sometimes, other celebrities. It lacks substantial coverage outside of primary sources (e.g. WWE). The article as it stands is a list of episodes with an infobox, woefully limited, and like most Network programming it doesn't justify an individual article. KaisaL (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Renee Young, this article was redirected there less than a week ago. 86.3.174.49 (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Renee Young, not independently notable.LM2000 (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renee Young. I had redirected it there about two weeks ago. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Renee Young, which is where it was redirected not too long ago. Nickag989^talk 21:27, 9 April 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 Edge and Christian. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge and Christian Show

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

Another paywalled WWE Network series. Only available as a web-only program. It features two notable subjects but there's no evidence of significant coverage outside of primary sources. The only reference as of now is a tweet by one of the hosts. Any useful content could be merged to Edge and Christian but I don't think there is any. KaisaL (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edge and Christian or WWE Network — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.73.122 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, in the past we redirect non-notable WWE Network shows to List of current WWE programming but this doesn't even appear there. Nickag989^talk 19:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and there's no obvious place to redirect this.LM2000 (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Edge and Christian. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 18:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Edge and Christian. If anyone is interested in this aspect of their team, they can find it there. bd2412 T 20:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there's barely anything to merge. Daß Wölf 23:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Nothing to indicate this show has stand-alone notability, but a redirect seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Papaursa.--Jobas (talk) 23:20, 17 April 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 Fred Optical Engineering Software. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 17:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photon Engineering

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

Can't find any independent reliable sources that would suggest this company is notable. While their software might be, the notability of the organisation is not inherited. Sam Walton (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Fred Optical Engineering Software. The refs on the current article are not enough to even approach clearing WP:GNG and I cannot find significant coverage beyond bare mentions in articles about the FRED software.. David in DC (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. The company appears to inherit notability by being the author of the FRED software. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 13 April 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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynefin

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

Majority of editors were for deletion or redirect in a newly created article (see talk page). No work has been done since the redirect was opposed by one editor back in January --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowded: From your comment, it seems like you meant to nominate Cynefin at articles for deletion. Is that correct? — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - easiest all round I think ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So...what's the reason for nominating this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created as part of a dispute. It's a dictionary definition with a side order of word salad, e.g. "In Welsh words can reflect the lived experiences of the landscape". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hmmm, so @snowded suggested to delete the Cynefin page. Seems to me a clear breach of his Conflict of Interest on Cynefin model. Furthermore I see no majority of editors that was for deletion. It seemed to be just one, maybe two. Something weird is going on here. And NO this was not created as part of a dispute. Where is the proof for that statement? There seems to be an urge to remove something that hasn't got a proper chance to grow due to all pressure from people that want it to vanish. No wonder other editors don't step in ..... Hvgard (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hvgard, your creation of Cynefin was a breach of WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI, and arguably a breach of WP:HARASS because of the continuing focus on Snowded. See the final warning about COI issued in 2015 by Jytdog. Also pinging Huon who commented there. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog? Isn't that the guy that was later and still banned from discussing WP:COI. I don't take that seriously. Sorry.Hvgard (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and SarahSV (who has put a lot of work into the COI and PoV issues) ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and (especially)SarahSV's comment above.Llwyld (talk) 15:13, 18 April 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Seer

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

Can't find much of any independent reliable sources on this software to demonstrate notability. Sam Walton (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The see references that review this comic book reading app so that is something. --Frmorrison (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The first link seems to be a blog of some kind, they only appear to have one writer at any rate. The second might be ok, I don't know how reliable PC Advisor is. And the third is simply a download link, and doesn't constitute a reliable source of information. Sam Walton (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I found this and this, but I'm not convinced the subject is independently notable. I would suggest a merge to Comparison of image viewers, but it looks like that only includes entries that have their own articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:35, 8 April 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. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Short Metz Grossman

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

Not notable per WP:GNG. It seems she is best known for her role in music, but does not meet criteria for WP:MUSICBIO. –CaroleHenson (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She was mentioned by name during the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings. Ref added. I see many notable activities in the text, and saw several mentions in Google Books under "Anita MetZ Grossman". meets basic WP:GNG.198.58.162.200 (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clearly established and WP:GNG clearly met. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per others. Article needs work and cleanup, but notability met. Montanabw^(talk) 02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She was mentioned by name in the Hearings text mentioned above, but her name appears in only two places in that text: the index on page 890, and as part of a question on page 864 towards the bottom of the page. The relevant section on page 864 consists of Mr. Arens asking Mr. Saidenberg, "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either. Ca2james (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - I am totally fine with her being considered "notable", but aside from the mention of the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings, which seems to be a non-issue, I am not hearing a reason why she is considered notable. What in her career makes her notable?–CaroleHenson (talk) 13:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you removed that citation, and I have restored it. It's part of her story. The other refs tend to establish notability.198.58.162.200 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the comment above, " "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either." - this is not encyclopedic content and does not establish notability. For now, I won't remove the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe HUAC mentioned a large number of people, many of whom were not notable. I really don't see anything in her career that had national scope or had a significant impact on the arts. Rogermx (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm stunned by the "keep" votes. What am I missing? All I am seeing are references that are apparently local press mentions over a lifetime, many of them trivial, and a book that she self-published. This appears to be mostly original research by a SPA author. Surprised, too, editors are arguing "keep" based on being mentioned in a HUAC report. Is merely the accusation of being a communist a "notable" achievement? Anyway, I only came here because of the BANDS AND MUSICIANS criteria, which the subject clearly does not meet. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 17 April 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. No policy- or guideline-backed arguments for keeping the article have been shared. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Smith

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

This author has published a couple of books that seem to have enough coverage to have their own Wikipedia articles, but the subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria for inclusion.

Note: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Morgan. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added additional 2017 references to show subject continues to create notable works - a 'best feature film' nomination at an international film festival and regular written article contributions to a leading trade magazine Sanseng (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Sanseng (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
You're missing the point. Exactly what criteria of WP:NAUTHOR does this author meet? Contributing to trade magazines and having a film nominated in a non-notable film festival isn't helping here. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article had 2,858 pageviews in the last year, so clearly there is significant interest in this subject.92.21.249.2 (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)— 92.21.249.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
An article having pageviews isn't a valid reason for keep. I'm sure there are lots of pageviews for all kinds of non-notable or inappropriate topics, but that doesn't mean the author is notable. We need sources, of the kind that Sanseng has added, to demonstrate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A source from IMDB and a primary source about an obscure film festival talking about itself, which Sanseng added, don't demonstrate notability. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NAUTHOR L3X1 (distant write) 21:49, 19 April 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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Holiday

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

There really doesn't appear to be any independent notability outside the subject's band. At best, this warrants a redirect to Born Cages. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NMUSIC via the criteria of being "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Jet Lag Gemini and Born Cages both have articles, and he's been a main member of both. I actually don't think he's especially notable but by the letter of the guidelines this should remain. KaisaL (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to KaisaL (talk): Although Jet Lag Gemini has a wikipage it’s a good candidate for deletion itself. See my comments in my Delete ivote below. So if your vote is to “follow the letter” of WP guidelines because this individual—who you admit does not strike you as independently notable—is in two independently notable ensembles, then you might consider changing your keep to delete if you agree with me on the shortcomings of one of those bands. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you nominate Jet Lag Gemini for AFD and it is deleted then I'd reconsider. For now, the guidelines say this is a notable subject, guidelines that are there I'd add to prevent knee jerk deletions by people not applying the policy correctly. If one of Vlad's bands is not notable then it becomes likely he wouldn't be in his own right, but I'd need to look into it further to give a properly considered opinion. Jet Lag Gemini have an EP and an album with articles too, I'd nominate those simultaneously. KaisaL (talk) 03:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI'd say the other band, Jet Lag Gemini is notable enough as well to warrant this page existing. Also as a producer, worked on Now 45 (released on Capitol Records and certified gold), Donald Cumming's Out Calls Only (Razor & Tie / Sony), Public Access TV's Never Enough (Cinematic Music Group / Sony) as well as Kidz Bop 25.

Notability can not be conferred. If there are non-promotional, independent third party references ABOUT Vlad Holiday’s role as a producer (rather than tangential mentions) on these projects, then those things listed as sources would add credibility to keeping this page. His involvement on Now 45, it should be noted, was within context of his role in Born Cages (which has its own wikipage,) . The success of that particular project has nothing to do with his contribution and everything to do with the other artists on the compilation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redirect to Born Cages article. Not enough evidence of independently notability. Of the 28 references provided here, only two are outside of his role in that band, and they are credits lists. Same thing goes with his role as an independent producer. Also, there’s a bit of sleight of hand with the Gold Record award. Are we really expected to believe it’s because of the subject’s contribution to Born Cages’ presence on a NOW MUSIC compilation album? I suspect it’s because the other tracks are by Taylor Swift, Ed Sheeran, Kesha, Josh Groban, etc. Notability is not conferred by association. As for the other band, Jet Lag Gemini is of dubious notability and that article is probably worthy of an AFD nomination owing to it’s lack of good sources and a sole EP and album output, neither of which show evidence of chart placement or review coverage from significant third party sources (the references provided are the usual fluff.) Finally, it should be noted that the unsigned “Keep” argument above is from an SPA editor with a special interest in this article and the one for Born Cages. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:48, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect Plenty of mentions in press which go towards GNG. L3X1 (distant write) 22:09, 19 April 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Digest

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

I am affiliated with Symantec, who publishes CIO Digest (the subject of the article). The article does not seem fit for an encyclopedia (promotional), especially the last two paragraphs. It is unlikely the publication is notable. It is likely this page was written by someone at the publication, who didn't realize their writing was promotional and inappropriate. Hopefully this AfD nomination will serve to assist in correcting that error. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 14:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn corporate publication. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:47, 8 April 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alpargatas S.A.

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

Promotional. Fails notability guidelines. No reliable secondary sources could be found on the web. RoCo^(talk) 15:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane ^talk 19:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am unsure as to whether or not it has potential. Rollingcontributor I googled it and they are listed on stock markets etc. The Washington State Journal has also talked about them previously. I am certainly not disagreeing that it does seem promotionally written though and is most likely not acceptable in its current state. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, all coverage available merely confirms existence or otherwise appears to be appears to be WP:ROUTINE dividend declarations, factory openings, trademark registrations, etc. No indication of substantial coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 16 April 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 22:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fractured (band)

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

Does not seem to meet any of the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. No sources or citations. Not even much of an assertion of notability. Vectro (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 21:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing to indicate notability. No sources found. Mattg82 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Allen Kotler

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR, as he as not had any significant roles in notable shows (he mostly has bit parts or guest roles). Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 15:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a glorified CV; no indications of notability or significance. No sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 21 April 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) 21:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oleh Teteriatnyk

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

Does not appear to meet WP:DIRECTOR, as his credits only include music videos and commercials (EDIT: and a short film). Does not otherwise appear to meet WP:GNG, but I may have missed some Ukrainian sources. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iamholic Hello! I've add filmography and more ukrainian references to be clear with your warnings. —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 02:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely non-notable; fails WP:DIRECTOR, not to mention WP:TOOSOON. No filmography save for an unreleased short film, and article reads like a resume. Needs English sources (of which there are none) for the English language Wiki article. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 21:30, 8 April 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom First Party

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

Non-notable political party: contested one election, only two newspaper articles ever even mention it in passing, won no seats, and the only reason there is as much there as there is is because I found the electoral commission's details of party officers from 2012. Minor party coverage is important in making sense of PNG politics, but there's no point in having coverage when they're this much of a nonentity. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of political parties in Papua New Guinea. Not notable on its own, but having candidates on the ballot I think makes them notable enough for a section within that article, maybe a subsection within a "minor parties" section. South Nashua (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There isn't the content for it, and PNG has had tons of these never-had-any-coverage-in-reliable-sources-but-had-a-ballot-line parties in its history. Merging would make List of political parties in Papua New Guinea utterly unwieldy. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's already a large list, but a sentence or two isn't going to hurt anything if the party was on the ballot. South Nashua (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 03:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Registered political party which contested an election. This is the sort of material which should be in a comprehensive encyclopedia. I'm in favor of keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections on general informational purposes. Want a policy citation: WP:IAR — Use Common Sense to Improve the Encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 21 April 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 12:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combatant Gentlemen

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

Every reference, even Fortune, is a slightly disguised press release or a notice.Any number of non-independent references do not show notability. As for Forbes, "Most promising company" means not yet notable. The ones that have actually accomplished their promise are the ones that are notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- being #"#91 on its list of America's Most Promising Companies" strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company to have an encyclopedia entry. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:56, 8 April 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. Proposed merge target inexistent. Sandstein 12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Fatwa under International Law

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

Found no sources that mention the book itself, so this book fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't read Farsi, but here, here, and here are three news articles about/reviews of the book. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The first two links are copies of the same report. One of these sites is Tasnim News Agency. The third link is a copy of this report [5] by the Fars News Agency. Both seem to be too closely affiliated with the Iranian government to count as RSs. Eperoton (talk) 04:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted that last night without having much of a chance to think it over. I agree with you. To go a bit further, freedom of the press in Iran is not great, and there is not too much guidance on understanding RS in such cases. My feeling is that it is up to us to make such a call. That is, government-influenced press in Iran can be used to satisfy V, but probably not to satisfy NPOV, but editors should use their judgement (I think using judgement to handle Irani government-influenced sources is better than out-of-hand dismissal, for what it is worth). In this case, without an independent source in-depth about the book, I agree that this article has issues with WP:ARTSPAM/WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest further that if all the independent (of the author) coverage we have for a book are from outlets that can be considered mouthpieces of a government -- any government -- then having an article on it is rather close to channeling government propaganda. So, barring additional coverage, I would also go with delete. Eperoton (talk) 23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

keep Hi. before of anything I have to tell something about the importance of book from international law. Regardless of the content of the book , which is arbitrary for readers to whether see it as a propaganda or not, I think if we have see the book from political view and its importance then there is no POV.Also we know that according to Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article there is no challenge between quality of sources and notability of subject--m,sharaf (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we can find RSs to demonstrate the book's importance, then we can keep it. I've commented on what I see as insufficiency of the sources presented so far, and I haven't seen evidence that better sources exist. Eperoton (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- poorly written page on a subject that lacks notability and significance. Possibly SYNTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nuclear Fatwa Seraphim System ^(talk) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: half of the article is a WP:COATRACK about the fatwa itself instead of the book reviewing it; the other half is poorly sourced. To that, add a dash of WP:SYNTH and sprinkle with WP:TNT. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:57, 15 April 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 01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SyMenu

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

Advertising, non-notable software product. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 00:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - poorly constructed page could simply be explained by a new editor, but I had no success finding news coverage. I did find some reviews, and while I think PC Advisor looks legitimate [6], the others don't entirely convince me of their reliability: [7], [8], [9], and [10]. If those sources are more reliable than I realize, I'd of course be happy to change my vote to Keep. Yvarta (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Advertising". SyMenu is not searching for advertising because it's a freeware software, its web site has not advertising at all, it is a software that serves the community. Please read here to understand what the real SyMenu approach is.
"Non-notable software product". We are talking about the USB launcher with the largest freeware program collection in the world (more than 1.200). Isn't it enough to classified the software as relevant in Wikipedia? Moreover SyMenu won a lot of awards from several web site.
"No success finding news coverage". Please note that PortableApps.com, the main SyMenu competitor, doesn't mention a lot of external references outside of self references to its web site (http://portableapps.com). So what's the point? Is it better to remove the real external links and to add new links to the SyMenu own web site to be reliable at the same level? Epikarma (talk) 6:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

References based on reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines) are needed to estabilish notability. That other article has bad sources too, is not good argument for AfD - quite otherwise... Pavlor (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlor is right. So let's speak about the external sources reliability.
Yvarta asserts that PC Advisor looks legitimate and the other web sites are not. Let's try to define this concept through a measurable principle and not through a personal feeling.
Let's see the web sites global ranks thanks to http://www.alexa.com:

PC Advisor 2034 [11]
BetaNews 11771 [12]
cnet.com 154 [13]
softpedia.com 1441 [14]
pcauthority.com.au 80091 [15]

According to Alexa except for PC Authority and BetaNews the other sources are more popular/reliable than PC Advisor. Epikarma (talk) 9:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Epikarma: Popular≠reliable!!!! See WP:RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL; article consists almost entirely of feature descriptions. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even though advertising of a free product isn't quite as sinister as advertising something with a cash value, I still think this article reads like a combination of an advertisement and an instruction manual. Clawsyclaw (talk) 08:53, 17 April 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. Consensus. The consensus here is in accord with our almost invariable practice: We do not normally keep places identified only as dots on a map, as many of them indicate individual structures or the like, but we do if there is any confirmation that it is a populated place, now or in the past. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Muleba, DRC

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the WP:GNG. This is because its only "source" is the subject (Muleba, DRC) shown in a mapping program. A WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject cannot be confirmed and there is no coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned here in this 1921 book, more numerously in this 1927 agricultural journal. I wonder why there are no more recent book cites? Has it changed names? Anyway, this would seem to meet WP:GEOLAND, which covers "even abandoned places." Keep. And once again, the nominator needs to be clear if he's going to start nominating in this area. Read GEOLAND if you haven't already. Named populated places do not have to meet GNG. Therefore even "trivial" mentions, if from acceptable sources, are sufficient to WP:Verify. We have a different benchmark for legally recognized populated places. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a real population center. As per WP:GEOLAND there is no such thing as a "non-notable" village/town/city. --Oakshade (talk) 01:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not sure why this was relisted when the only delete !vote hinged on "no coverage in reliable sources", which was quickly shown to be false in subsequent !votes... but sure, I guess I can repeat: Clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Antepenultimate (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per its existence on this map Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kasaï-Central. We have no sources that give more than the location, the name, and the province it is in. Only trivial mentions here... not enough for a standalone article. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is a dictionary entry with no good material for expansion.Burning Pillar (talk) 17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Burning Pillar: I don't think I will vote in this AfD, but I just wanted to point out that as per WP:5P, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is a gazetteer. The distinction is important for geographic locations. --NoGhost (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but we don't have basic info like population, or other statistics... Currently, the article only contains location and name. That's not enough material for a standalone article. It is possible that more information exists, especially primary sources, but... most of the small places will likely be a stub for a long time, or forever(WP:PERMASTUB); there is mostly local interest about those.Burning Pillar (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this content into Kasaï-Central, which currently does not cover constituent villages and towns, would lead to coverage that is out of WP:PROPORTION in that article. It's what's kept me from inserting even a wikilink in the province article to resolve the "orphan" tag currently on display; creating a section, or even a paragraph, to call out this one village would look utterly bizarre. Besides which, maintaining a separate article encourages expansion; if you want to permanently limit the information contained on this subject, a good way to do it would be to hide it away in some other article. Other benefits of a separate article for geographic subjects include easier interfacing with m:WikiMiniAtlas, WikiData, and foreign-language wikis. At the end of the day, WP:PERMASTUB is an essay, WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and I think I'll stick with the latter. Antepenultimate (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GEOLAND. The article needs improvement, not deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First !vote wrongly states the existence of this place cannot be confirmed. However, sources have been shown to the contrary. Obviously meets WP:GEOLAND. Also, the "fundamental principles" of Wikipedia are set out at WP:PILLARS. One of our fundamental principles is that we are a gazetteer. AusLondonder (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rich "Sully" Sullivan

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

Cannot find any secondary reliable (non-blog) sources backing up what's in the article. Subject generally appears to fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. LK (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Google won't show up any RSes which fails our basic policies. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 01:03, 15 April 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.