Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 January	14 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uroš Pinterič[edit]

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

I have serious doubts this biography meets WP:PROF. I've looked at [1] and the numbers seem on the low side. I'll ping User:Randykitty for a second opinions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Citations, as Piotrus surmised, way too low to indicate notability. Horrible resume-like article does little to indicate any notability and, in fact, associate/assistant profs rarely are notable. Fails WP:PROF, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Academics Additionally, full CV is quoted, with significant amount of academic functions especially regarding the age (dismissing the argument on ranking and notability - assuming that Piotrus and Randykitty have little knowledge of (especially Slovenian) education system), According to publication activity in the national context the person in question is ranked (on this day) on 7th (out of first 100) position among Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies, Communication studies and narrow political science) (leaving behind many full professors) based on publication outcome, shares 11th position on number of articles in web of Science, and is on 33th position (competing with the people who are in academia much longer time than him) based on number of quotations without auto quotations (info can daily change based on new publications entered to the system - source: SICRIS/WOS). If the data is retrieved for narrow field of political science (politology) his ranking is higher. 4th by publication scoring, 2nd by number of WOS publications, 10th by number of quotations without auto quotations, and 7th based on h-index. He was present in national media - despite these mentions are under actual relevance, since commenting the daily events is far from the actual work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 06:32, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:Prof#C1 with only 114 citations on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- not suitable for inclusion; a promotional article on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete: based on the logic (not the rules) presented by the request - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Matth%C3%A4us (article exists, despite: google scholar does not return even the first searches on him or his topic (however, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) - there is a warning of citation metrics as reliable), the Matthaus article is under-referenced, etc etc. - Argument: I believe that notability issue should be taken in the perspective of the local context (I was proving this part before), with certain level of reservation due to the different standards. However, things shall be documented (I was trying to support the article in question with reliable sources). I was somehow, trying to make some additional argument on the issue raised - it is easy to write delete - no quotations but takes bit more time on reading the things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colcody2000 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dollface[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the relevant notability guidelines. (Please note this is regarding the 2015 film - there are others with an identical name) Exemplo347 (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, as written doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG and I don't see anything else (reviews, etc.). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minimal information, topic not notable. Jeff Quinn (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The horrorfreaknews.com article is a long and detailed review from what looks like a reliable source. No other significant coverage found by independent reliable sources. One review doesn't satisfy WP:NFILM. Also missed WP:N. Gab4gab (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roboinvest[edit]

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

Fails GNG. This startup existed for less than 24 months before it was merged into a small company in Idaho that, itself, doesn't have a WP article. Until it shuttered, its coverage, though through RS, was limited to routine launch announcements made within 60 days of its founding. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material and corporate spam. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article on a short-lived start-up. I am not seeing anything beyond the usual start-up coverage and routine coverage of its later merger. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability and thus fails WP:NCORP. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Petra Januskova[edit]

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

No indication of notability, no significant coverage in reliable sources beyond the college newspaper. Largely unreferenced; removing all unreferenced content in this BLP would amount to turning it into a one-line stub. Huon (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – non-notable tennis player, fails WP:Tennis and WP:GNG. Adamtt9 (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability. Fails WP:NTENNIS CBS527^Talk 04:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:01, 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. The keep opinions are weakly argued, most not addressing notability but being of the "per X" or "it looks good" variety. Sandstein 06:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wistaria (SP-259)[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:08, 6 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) 11:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This was small boat that was never commissioned into the USN: the title of the article seems misleading. As such, there's no reason to think that it's notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Trivia, lacks notability. Kierzek (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It never actually sailed under that name. Even if it did, it would be a NN vessel. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A few years ago, to improve Wikipedia′s rather sparse coverage of the U.S. Navy in World War I, I embarked on a solo effort to develop an entire series of articles on the vast section patrol program of incorporating civilian ships and craft into the Navy. (Wikipedia's coverage of the U.S. Navy is very biased toward the American Civil War, World War II, and very recent naval operations.) I wrote hundreds of articles covering the various boats and ships, and Wikipedia's coverage now is more or less complete, subject to new sources of information arising. A few of the ships and craft appear in Navy and other records under the name and SP numbers they would have had if they had been commissioned, but they never were. For the sake of completeness and to eliminate all confusion, I included these in my project when I could find out enough about them to do so. Their notability derives from the association with the section patrol program, not from their individual histories. It always disappoints me to see the nomination of real history articles for deletion when Wikipedia retains so many trivial articles on science fiction characters and video games and whatnot, but if this really is taking up too much room on a server and needs to be deleted, then please ensure you retain the knowledge imparted in the deleted article by including all relevant information on a shipindex or other page elsewhere in Wikipedia so that knowledge of the vessel is not lost. If you are not going to do that, then please leave the article alone. Mdnavman (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Keep It's obvious the article isn't very notable but deletion is unwarranted. The article is very neatly put together and presentable with all appropriate sourcing and article layout. The above comments by mdnavman are further applicable reasons for keep. Brad (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entry in the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships seems to establish a fair claim to notability. Also, I agree with Brad101, the article seems useful to the encyclopedia, as what would be the point of removing or redlinking the ship at List of United States Navy ships: W–Z and elsewhere. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy: But that is a dictionary, and Wikipedia is definitely not a dictionary. Thus a few sentences describing it does not establish notability. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: It is called dictionary, but it goes quite in depth on many of its entries. For instance, the next boat is the witek and has a much longer entry. Also, for biographies, an individual with an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography is generally considered suitable for inclusion in wikipedia. I'm not sure if the same sort of thing should be true for ships, but I don't immediately see why not. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have to agree with Brad101 and Mdnavman. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The ship, quite simply, does not have the sources necessary to establish notability. The only reliable source that seems to exist is the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships entry, and that merely is a couple sentence description that does nothing but proves existence. The above arguments for Keep seem to largely be based around WP:NOHARM and WP:OTHERSTUFF, and don't really address the central problem with the article, in that it simply does not meet the GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are in fact, more sources than DANFS, and the article cites them; the Naval History and Heritage Command includes photographic coverage of the vessel on a separate page devited to it (the link to it was broken along with the links to all the DANFS articles when the NHHC changed its Web page structure a number of years ago, but the page is still out there), and navsource.org also has a page as part of its coverage of the section patrol program. Again, the significance arises out of the vessel′s association with a major United States Navy program of 1917-1918, not out of its particular history. If there is some storage problem on Wikipedia servers that precludes individual articles for all the vessels in the program, then I could understand deletion, but I doubt that there is a storage problem. Complete deletion is in any event inappropriate, because deletion actually removes supporting information for the broader coverage of the section patrol program. If having a separate article offends, then instead of deletion, moving of all the information contained in the article to a shipindex artcle or perhaps a list article of some type ("List of Section patrol craft," or something like that), would be more appropriate, with links to extant lists of U.S. Navy patrol craft and so on. Given the amount of work involved in all that, it's easier – and probably better serves Wikipedia users – to just leave it alone. Besides, it's doubtful that the tiny sample size of this discussion can give us a useful gauge of worldwide Wikipedia editors and users and, given that, I think the opinion of those more interested in the details of U.S. Navy history ought to prevail over bureaucratic interpretations of blanket Wikipedia guidelines that are open to - and intended to be open to - interpretation. Absent overwhelming evidence to the contrary - and this small a discussion size does not give us the sample size with which to generate such evidence - it would seem that WP:NOHARM should apply. Mdnavman (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

(*Edit: Just for clarity, I am the same individual as the IP above. I just remembered that I'm posting on a different computer, and I want to make clear that I'm not attempted to vote twice or anything)

Again, the sources you are bringing up do nothing but prove that the ship existed, not that it was notable or significant in any way. Your argument that it should be kept because it was part of the section patrol is also invalid, as notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The program may have been notable, but that does not automatically confer notability to every element, and every minor ship, that was ever associated with it. If you want to argue that the information should be merged or that a separate list should be created to index them all, that is certainly a possibility, but so far, there has been no valid arguments that this particular ship comes even remotely close to meeting the WP:GNG needed to be kept as its own article. Saying that it is of interest to those with interest in U.S. Naval history is a WP:ILIKEIT argument, which, like the rest of the argument here are not addressing why this article was brought before AFD, which is because it simply is not notable and does not have any sources that come even remotely close to showing anything other than the fact that it existed. 75.82.28.71 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Brad101 and Mdnavman. DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept, can we all agree to move the article so that USS is no longer in the title? As it was never commissioned it doesn't get the title, which is only given to commissioned ships. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete because I do not consider the entry in the Dictionary constitues significant coverage ("directly and in detail"). Further, that is also only one source, and the WP:GNG requires coverage in sources, plural, even going on to clarify: Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. The 'keep' arguments all seem to be along the lines of WP:INTERESTING, WP:LOOKSGOOD etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisom (talk • contribs) 13:58, 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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four Quarters[edit]

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

Tagged for questionable notability since 2011. I was unable to find significant coverage of this publisher in reliable third-party sources so I think it fails WP:GNG. I may be wrong though: since the publisher is in Belarus, one might expect coverage in Belarusian and Russian using the Cyrillic alphabet but that's hard for me to search. (Relevant search should be "Четыре четверти" but the top hits are about a novel) Pichpich (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find reliable third-party sources. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 14 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Casati Boya[edit]

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

Article has existed for 12 years, yet still has no sources and does not explain why the subject is notable. Previous AfD was conducted in 2006, when notability standards were not well developed. Delete for failure to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Safiel (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I PROD'd this not realizing it had been AFD'd before, for basically this reason. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 22:15, 13 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. The speedy keep opinions are premised on the assumption that deletion was not proposed. After it has been clarified that deletion is indeed proposed, they are inapplicable and there therefore are no keep opinions on the table. Sandstein 06:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore National Day Parade, 2016[edit]

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

I do not see the notability of each individual parade. IMHO this appears to be a WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation as the individual parade pages seem to just be listing the lineups and in some cases the hour by hour timeline. I don't question that the parade itself is notable but I think all these individual pages should be deleted ~~merged to Singapore National Day Parade~~. I think that Rose Parade and Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade establish the precedent. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under WP:SK, first limb:- The nominator doesn't want to delete the content, they want to redirect it. WP:MERGEPROP is the way to go about this.—S Marshall T/C 00:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a large scale redirect proposal such as this, I think AFD is the correct venue. This definitely needs more discussion and merge proposals on the article pages often don't get any input. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is at WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Read the policy, and you will know that one choice is an RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:SK#1 or wrong venue No argument for deletion. Also see WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAWEBHOST is an argument for deletion here. If I am not wrong, the merge proposed by Zackmann08 seems to be more like a compromise solution. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that the nomination statement, "I think all these individual pages should be merged", proposes a merge? Unscintillating (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the notability of each individual parade. IMHO this appears to be a WP:NOTAWEBHOST violation as the individual parade pages seem to just be listing the lineups and in some cases the hour by hour timeline. is a pretty valid deletion rationale. Whether a merge is proposed after this doesn't change the fact that the original (and preferred intention) seems to be that the pages should not be retained. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall, Unscintillating, and Lemongirl942: Valid points made all around. Let me clarify. I am proposing that the individual pages be deleted. The point I was trying to make was that I do think the parade itself is notable and there is probably a few sentences from each page that can be used in the main article. But since these are BIG pages with lots of content I am suggesting deleting I felt that WP:AFD was a more appropriate venue. If these were just 2 similar pages to be merged to one, I would agree that it would be more of a merge discussion. That isn't the case here. I am saying that 11 pages should be deleted as not individually notable. Does that make sense? Please ping me if further clarification is needed. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not an argument for deletion. For WP:DEL8, you also have to explain why the article can be neither merged nor redirected; which it appears that you think that it can be merged, and you aren't that familiar with notability deletion. By your new statement, you would be proposing a license violation by merging content and then deleting the attribution (see WP:MAD). Unscintillating (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's a way around that. If we merge the content to one page then normally we keep the previous page as a redirect in order to give the original contributors credit and thereby comply with our Terms of Use. If we turn those titles into a redlink instead, then an administrator could perform a history merge into the new title before deleting the old one -- quite a complicated merge, in fact, because there are so many pages going into one. However, it's a laborious and fiddly task, and the sysop who we ask to do it will no doubt ask why we can't just use redirects.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: what do you mean notability is not an argument for deletion?? It is usually the principal argument... I would like to point out I am TRYING to do this the right way. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is a test to determine if a topic should be standalone; where alternates for non-notable topics include redirection, and deletion is at WP:DEL8. Policy is to prefer redirection to deletion. WP:IGNORINGATD and an essay WP:INSIGNIFICANCE have more. Unscintillating (talk) 20:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this userspace essay is an excellent summary of Unscintillating's reasoning. I rather agree with it in this case, although it's more inclusionist in its thinking than many modern Wikipedians are.—S Marshall T/C 22:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:WEBHOST; this content should be on the event's web pages, not here. Clearly promotional / link farm, in violation of WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST.Ajf773 (talk) 02:33, 15 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miky Del Cambio[edit]

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

This article is written in a promotional manner and the page creator appears to have a conflict of interest in writing the material. A web search did not establish notability or significance for this page, both references provided on the page are primary sources to the artists own webpage. Garchy (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, references are real images from major italian newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicmusicart (talk • contribs) 18:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Honestly not sure why this wasn't tagged for speedy. I'm pretty sure it would meet WP:A7. Marianna251TALK 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was removed by creator, as well as a PROD - and the AfD template as well! Garchy (talk) 13:57, 14 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pechin Shopping Village[edit]

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

Article is uncited and mostly reads like an advertisement. It's unclear why this individual grocery store is worthy of an article versus any other standalone grocery store. Bitmapped (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems to be a single local grocery store and is non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:15, 17 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 06:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organic frequencies[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about pseudoscientific concept. The University of Colorado link is broken, and none of the other references appear to meet reliable sources guidelines]]. The bulk of the article reads like an advertisement for an "energy healer." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as nominator. Jeff Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It starts with some unsourced (but reasonable) statements about the history of different musical scales being used, then suddenly veers into bizarre health claims, which form the bulk of the article. Most of the "Today" section talks about a single person who is described as a biological researcher, but who was in the Philosophy department (if the dead link is accurate), and who has no published biology papers that I can find. The only references are to her own works. The claims of health effects are not supported, and I cannot find reliable sources that report such research. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The concept of certain frequencies affecting the body exists, and whether it is true or baseless, it warrants an article. See here and here. However, much of the article should be removed as rubbish/promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify - As Cwmhiraeth notes, the concept may warrant an article; but not his one. The "Background" section merely recapitulates material presented in scientific pitch, and the "Today" section is poorly sourced and promotional. I'd suggest cutting this down to a stub pointing at scientific pitch for the time being, pending some checks into what suitable material does exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are either unreliable in terms of WP:MEDRS (including those that Cwmhiraeth listed above) or don't indicate any notability for the fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:50, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azrael (band)[edit]

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

Notable? I think not. Refs appear to me niche heavy metal guff. TheLongTone (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There appears to be several metal bands with this name, which makes searching tricky, and seems to have confused Allmusic, who tacked this band's albums onto their entry for a Spanish band. The one piece of reliable-source coverage I found for this band is a PopMatters review. Not enough to justify an article unless someone can find more. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. There are more bands with this name, but they also fail that same policy. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:28, 14 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 19:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peter MacNab[edit]

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

I don't see anything in the article (or in a brief search]] to establish that this man is anything more than a bloke doing his job. Certainly the references do not do so; a companies house ref only establishes a fact, & the superdrug ref is hardly independent. TheLongTone (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't see any notability here. If he'd joined Superdrug much earlier and steered its growth then maybe, but he hasn't been there long enough for that to be enough. What was he doing beforehand? Is that significant? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here suggests any real notability. --Domdeparis (talk) 16:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 13 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 Dangal (film). joe decker ^talk 06:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zaira Wasim[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and a case of WP:BLP1E not yet ready for a stand alone article. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable article. 14.96.26.214 (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC) — 14.96.26.214 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dangal (film). A clear case of WP:BLP1E. ChunnuBhai (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON; no independent notability at this moment Spiderone 10:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect per Chunnubhai above. Has one major role in a notable film. Not enough independent coverage in RS to satisfy any notability guideline. Gab4gab (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This case may be similar to Suhani Bhatnagar, which has also been redirected to Dangal (film) for similar reason.ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind having an redirect for the actress unless we don't see what happen with Suhani Bhatnagar (see history). GSS (talk|c|em) 05:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the correct way to deal with that is resolving the edit warring. If that persists the editor(s) insisting on edit warring may be warned and due process followed.ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above I don't mind having an redirect and I hope you will also add this article in your watchlist to deal with single-purpose accounts and sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A comment on this AFD has been posted by an editor at Talk:Zaira Wasim, and can be seen here. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article must be deleted, or it can be redirected to the movie page, i.e. Dangal (film) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Sandeep Munjal (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dangal (film). A clear case of WP:BLP1E Or Better Delete it. MumbaikarLaunda (talk) 18:03, 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 (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

University of the Philippines Open University[edit]

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

The only reference given here is to a single PDF file generated by the open university's affiliated school, the University of the Philippines. The current article might qualify for deletion as a promotional piece, but as its notability is debatable, I am offering it for discussion at XfD. KDS4444 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a constituent university (CU), part of the University of the Philippines higher education system. If it needs sourcing, then do it, but unless there's a claim that the CU does not exist, then the lack of sourcing is not a reason to delete, per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ValarianB (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep same reason with ValarianB. mcLovin'tosh (talk) 04:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mcLovin'tosh please check out Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Next, what is a "constituent university"? Wikipedia does not have and never has had an article on the topic. I am going to guess that you mean something like a "distance education". In this case, the open university is basically the same as the university proper (I can see that both institutions have the same person identified as president), and a redirect might be preferable to a delete. Might be. KDS4444 (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a CU is like an American School system with sub-campuses, e.g. the University of Massachusetts is the overall university system, containing University of Massachusetts Amherst and others. Amherst would be analogous to the CU. ValarianB (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject to national notability (supported by two Republic Acts and certification of excellence by the highest higher education institution of the country) and is covered by various international studies and an Asian Development Bank case study which is unfortunately only available via snippet preview --Lenticel ^(talk) 10:09, 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. joe decker ^talk 06:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Peters[edit]

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

Does not meet the criteria WP:NACTOR and a search on the web brings up nothing of any notability except for the 1 film with JCVD. Probably WP:TOOSOON. Domdeparis (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and NACTOR. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 16:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TOOSOON. –Davey2010^Talk 23:29, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Campion Conway[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable author. The article was created in AfC and the submission was denied, after which it was moved to mainspace without any modifications. The creator of the draft and the editor who moved the article into mainspace seem to have tag-teamed in a similar way on a few different articles, another one of which is also in AfD at the moment.

Be that as it may, the question is notability, and I can't find any. There is a lot of praise for the author in the article, but none of it is sourced and when I look for sources I only find things like Goodreads and Linkedin and Amazon.com - nothing secondary at all, and nothing that remotely satisfies WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. bonadea contributions talk 13:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

~~Speedy~~ Delete I can find no WP:RS secondary sources. None.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ...the regular kind. Doesn't qualify for A7, since it does make some claim of significance. Doesn't qualify for G11 either, because, while it is promotional, it isn't unambiguously so. But having said that, there is no actual claim to anything that would constitute notability, even if it were true, and I didn't turn up anything to say otherwise. TimothyJosephWood 18:35, 13 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. Per Softlavender's uncontested sources Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Bolier[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Was able to locate just one secondary source here. The article cites this source which reads more like an interview. A search on Billboard brings back nothing. Difficult to establish notability when so little has been written about this person. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Clearly notable. I would withdraw my nomination but another editor has already voted to delete. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, due to lack of substantive reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Lots of Google results, including AllMusic [2], Resident Advisor [3], BBC Radio 1 [4], Billboard picks [5], [6], and lots of Dutch sources in Web, news, and book results. In 2010 was #68 the Top 100 DJs in DJ Magazine: [7], and was in the Top 100 in 2008, 2009, 2011 as well [8]. "Is This Love (Remix)" reached #16 in the UK: [9], [10]. Some interviews in TranceSound: 2009, 2010; The French Shuffle [11]; The DJ List [12]; several more interviews: [13]. Previous AfD was a unanimous Keep from four editors, and notability is not temporary. Remember to avoid WP:SYSTEMICBIAS of only English-language subjects. Softlavender (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of systemic bias unnecessary here: I know living composers from several countries, and have sung in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Russian, Flemish, Latvian, Estonian, Swedish, Japanese and Xhosa :-) Guy (Help!) 15:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep basically on Softlavender's authority--clearly they're much better at searching than I am. I found nothing more, just a few mentions on 3VOOR12 ([14]), but the things Softlavender found seem to cut it, and then there's the previous AfD. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 13 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seidel Abel Boanerges[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources indicate notability. APK whisper in my ear 11:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Biography-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 11:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly non-notable. Also WP:PROMO. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing to show any notability. There are thousands of Baptist ministers, and there is nothing about this one to indicate he's done anything important. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 18 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Thai Football Division 3[edit]

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

Article is essentially a set of redirects with no content in itself. DrStrauss talk 10:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amateur league that doesn't appear to be notable Seasider91 (talk) 00:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable, regional amateur competition. No indication of significant reliable coverage beyond routine match reporting at best. Fenix down (talk) 09:32, 16 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr 185[edit]

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

Per WP:NFF, if this movie is actually being made, it's too soon to have an article. The two references provided do not work and there's no evidence this is being filmed. APK whisper in my ear 09:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of india-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 09:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. APK whisper in my ear 09:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NFILM Spiderone 10:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My searches turn up nothing. Gab4gab (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now as being premature and failing WP:NFF... it's simply TOO SOON. As the topic can be barely sourced as a project under consideration, WP:CRYSTAL is inapplicable. Fine for a return ONLY if or when inclusion criteria are met. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 06:21, 18 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. Despite the overwhelming majority of "keep" votes, their arguments are generally extremely weak, focusing on such things as political views, personal interest in the topic, humor value, and mighty exaggerations ("worldwide recognition", "will live eternally", "impact on the world"). Many (most?) participants are users with very few local edits who appear to have wandered over from the Polish Wikipedia. That said, there's clearly nothing resembling a consensus for deletion, and closing the discussion as such would be a supervote on my part. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Escobar[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. I don't believe that every blunder of politician is notable. And when you look at the news information, their point out this article as one of main signs of this blunder notability. Therefore Wikipedia is a source for itself, and it is in fact creating the situation, not only describing it – which can be considered as a political action. Note that this article was deleted on pl wiki over a really fast and noncontroversial discussion. PuchaczTrado (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although it should be less skewed and focus more on the 'phenomenon' side of it. DFC02 (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Witold Waszczykowski. It's quite right that not all blunders or otherwise controversial statements from politicians are so notable that they deserve a separate article. But some do. This certainly is one that should be mentioned in the list of political gaffes. Most items in that list link to a (sub)section within another article where the blunder is explained. The biography of Waszczykowski would be fitting for such a solution. However, some items in the list have their very own entries, such as fuddle duddle and We begin bombing in five minutes. I guess if there is significant coverage and controversy surrounding a gaffe, it merits its own article, otherwise there may be room for it inside another article. I would certainly call the coverage significant, with national media around the world including both the NYT and TWP covering it. For me the question is rather whether it's enough for an independent article or not, and if not, I suggest the entry Waszczykowski is the best place to put it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Witold Waszczykowski. This may warrant a mention in Witold Waszczykowski's article, but this is certainly not notable enough to warrant an article. Not every blunder of a politician is notable enough for its own article. --Tdl1060 (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not just a blunder of a politician, this is a major thing that all of Poland is talking about and by now a source of uncountable memes. It has made it into the press of the whole world. 700k ghits in just 2 days should speak for themselves. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 11:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Encyclopedia Dramatica the better place to post memes related topics? PuchaczTrado (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not the gaffe itself but the instant and wide takeup by the social media phenomenon, that makes it notable. Also widely covered in traditional media. --Lysy^talk 12:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The English article was one of the sources of German tagesschau.de, the web portal of one of Germany's most popular TV news, which reported on the San Escobar blunder on Jan 13th, 2017. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lysy - I found this via the Washington Post article and have been laughing myself silly. The amount of attention it's gotten is massive and unrelenting. Sometimes gaffes turn into a phenomenon.[15] —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ewa Maria - it is funny and explains everythink; nobody will belive San Escobar exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.186.219.240 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Witold Waszczykowski or delete; not notable on its own, likely recentism (i.e., like Liberland, likely to be forgotten quickly). Mélencron (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subjective opinion of selective sources. Can be considered as a political action.Czyzyki (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't the news - we don't have an article for every slip-up by a politician. This is an immensely forgettable, temporary thing. At the very most, some this MAY warrant a small mention in the article of the person involved, but there's no way it is worth its own article. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Witold Waszczykowski; significant internet phenomenon, has gained worldwide popularity in both social and traditional media. Additionally, it is related to the important representative of the Polish state. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absolute keep. Has made a notable, newsworthy impact on the world, even if not the nominator's particular corner of it. Please note the references in the Washington Post, the BBC, and in the Guardian (that's just after a rudimentary search): [16] [17] [18] Moncrief (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the condition that fancruft like coats of arms and maps are removed, and it purely discusses the *phenomenon* of the creation. Radagast (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that it was viral for a couple of days does not justify having a permanent wiki article. Do we create an article for every kitten that goes viral on the Internet? No. This anecdote will be completely forgotten in a month. It's worth a brief mention on the politician's page, nothing more. Bluefairy en (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local curiosity. Temporary prank. Short-lived. Irrelevant. MOs810 (talk) 22:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:
- The arguments "will be completely forgotten in a month." or "short-lived." are not acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines as it forgets that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. As editors to Wikipedia, we may not make edits based solely on speculation or prediction. Although this most often means that we should not make speculative changes that add to the content of an article, this also applies to edits such as removal of content based solely off of speculation.
- Evaluating its "relevance" is also a rather poor argument against having the article; we've got an entire subcategory of articles on the topic of fictional countries dedicated solely to "middle earth realms" with fifty-one articles. (point being: as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia allows readers to find articles in a range of importance; that is including but not limited to low-importance ones.)
- In the event that this article's topic does become "completely forgotten" in a month, that does not warrant its deletion. We've got several articles dedicated to various individual memes that took place only during the United States 2016 Presidential Primaries, all of which were short lived. (For example, an article is dedicated solely to the "Bernie Sanders' Dank Meme Stash" FaceBook page)
- The article does utilize viable sources and cites them appropriately; if it is poorly written, that is subject to change without deletion.
- In the event that this becomes short-lived, the worst-case scenario is that this article lacks the attention that it during its status as "viral."
BrendonTheWizard (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Witold Waszczykowski if deleted. Mr Waszczykowski is some special person for such weird events. Definitely merge to his biography. After RT-Television from Moscow interrupted the US parliament C-SPAN tv-transmission with presentation of Polish memes of San Escobar ( Indepented reports ), it must be something special, isn't?... Zboralski (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly. Has gained worldwide notable media attention. If it would be forgotten sooner or later noone can tell now, so the argument "not temporary" will only apply in the future, if it will have been forgotten then. --.js (((☎))) 11:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his has enormous potential - will live eternally and will constitute a sort of a benchmark (or rather limit) in diplomacy, not only Polish but, I daresay, worldwide. Kicior99 (talk) 13:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is notable not only because of the blunder but the worldwide recognition it is acheived since. If it's not kept then it should be a merge with Witold Waszczykowski CloudSurferUK (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The gaffe has received widespread international coverage so we can't delete it. I'm afraid the business with the flag and the country code and so on is a great deal less funny than the people who added it think it is. It's also possible that it might be believed ---- after all, there are people whose entire knowledge of foreign affairs comes from the US education system. We shouldn't have a separate article because the hoax content is going to keep getting re-added by comic geniuses. Smerge to Witold Waszczykowski.—S Marshall T/C 14:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has the potential for continued relevance, and it could be considered for deletion again in a year if the number of hits drops off. Wikipedia was my first stop to find out if this place was real or not, before Google, and others are likely to follow the same path. Let's help them. (I also agree that if it's delete, someone is likely to reinstate it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodion.rathbone (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! It has some importance for the Foreign relations of Poland and the capacity (or incapacity) of the current Minister of Foreign Affairs. OnkelFordTaunus (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An important event showing the level of competence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs is currently the ruling party in Poland. Szwedkowski (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above comments. This event is important to Poland's present history. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 00:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to the article about the politician and merge the content. If the event has repercussions sufficient to establish lasting notability they would be merged into an article about those repercussions, not the country name. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge to Witold Waszczykowski per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER--> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 05:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above comments Jan Kszywy (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good secondary sources (e.g. online newspapers). Great societal interest. Clearly notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Natriumchloratum (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A pile of primary sources (what newspapers are) about a gaffe and subsequent interest online (attributing to the many keep !votes) does not notability make. Come back in fifty years when there are responsible books (secondary sources) written that examine this. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep:~~ In response to the statement "Come back in fifty years when there are responsible books (secondary sources) written that examine this." That's not how Wikipedia works. If that were the case, we'd have to delete every article from Harambe to Bernie or Hillary?. I think you're misreading WP:NOTNEWS. "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories." means that Wikipedia itself is not a first-hand source of news; that does not mean that Wikipedia may not cite outside reports of news, especially online ones. If it was necessary to cite physical books, an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia could not exist. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BrendonTheWizard: Yes, with less than six months editing I'm sure you know all about Wikipedia. Thing is, had you kept reading you'd see that "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" (emphasis mine). You say "If that were the case, we'd have to delete every article from Harambe to Bernie or Hillary?" and that's where we ought to be headed. Dear internet, Wikipedia is not a fan site where you can write about the stuff you thought was funny. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chris troutman: Attacking a user rather than their argument doesn't add to your argument. I wouldn't recommend using ableism to defend your point. As for WP:NOTFANSITE, it's worth noting that this rule means "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought" and relates to original research, personal inventions, personal essays, and discussions. I have doubts that we are to be headed towards a Wikpedia free of users "writing about stuff they thought was funny" when Wikipedia has categories and subcategories dedicated solely to memes, fictional countries, viral content from social media, etc. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 03:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Chris troutman: Please refrain from attacking fellow contributors personally and focus on content. --.js 09:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per consensus. T3h 1337 b0y 18:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus is a rationale now? I should just go onto every deletion discussion and say that. Mélencron (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think T3h 1337 b0y meant in the WP:SUPPORT sort of way, though that's how it appears. I imagine he meant that he agrees with the reasons (if there were any) that the subject is notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think we should let T3h 1337 b0y speak for himherself rather than trying to speak for himher. Moncrief (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Massive media coverage in Poland and abroad. Boston9 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep:~~ I've already casted a !vote but I'd also like to add that our San Serriffe article has existed since 2003. San Serriffe, like San Escobar, is a fictitious country that originated as a news story, but by Wikipedia's guidelines has survived thirteen years of peer review and editing without being challenged for deletion and to start now would be inconsistent. San Escobar is no different and to assert that this fictional country should be deleted could arguably be considered hypocrisy. To delete both San Escobar and San Serriffe would be to start a purge against the well-established category of fictional countries. San Escobar is simply an addition to the category that it belongs in. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the article on Witold Waszczykowski, keeping the redirect. This has received mass coverage in media, domestic and abroad, and, despite being a deletionist, i am actually reluctant to let this one go. Wojciech Pędzich (talk) 08:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there's just so much media coverage that we're long past the point where it's just some random blunder of a politician. SkywalkerPL (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: do not merge. As already someone pointed out above and another person in the article talk page, there already exists San Serriffe, so if we delete this article, then what's the point of keeping the San Serriffe article? There is plenty of coverage, but I was not follwing the news, so when I wanted to find out what the fuss is about thankfully I found this wikipedia article explaining what it is. So it is a very useful article and should not be deleted.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if random political blunders and parodies would not be notable per se, Wikipedia would have no mention of the next president of the U.S. Therefore, it all comes down to coverage, which has definitely crossed the threshold. --Oop (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)--Oop (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does every bushism need a Wikipedia article? No. Neither does very waszczykowskism. Panek (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - important social phenomena after a funny mistake of a MFA, certainly larger than many others artificial countries. Wulfstan (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BrendonTheWizard. Besides, a concept of San Escobar is so catchy, that it seems, that it won't end as a one season meme, but will remain in Polish popular culture/language/memosphere as a sign of politicians' ignorance (no matter from which party) for good. Pibwl ←« 21:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to have received enough media coverage to be notable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to Witold Waszczykowski and Fictitious Countries. It does provide information as to what San Escobar is and how it originated. It has garnered enough attention, interest and interaction as to deserve an entry in Wikipedia, as a stand-alone or a redirect. I personally got countless invitations to join it's "official website" and needed to look it up (got to Wikipedia) to find out what it was all about. It's a massive social media phenomenon and a cultural referent now, temporary or not (how can it be predicted) and it should somehow be addressed by the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElleGreen (talk • contribs) 02:26 19 January 2016 (UTC) — ElleGreen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep; do not merge to Witold Waszczykowski.~~ It is worth noting that this article contains more content than the Witold Waszczykowski article and all references on that article are about San Escobar. If we merge this article into his, then the Witold Waszczykowski article would essentially be a San Escobar article. His article as-is is a stub compared to this one. It would arguably make more sense to merge Witold Waszczykowski into San Escobar, though I would not and do not advocate for that either. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 07:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @BrendonTheWizard:, how many votes are you going to cast? PuchaczTrado (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck out your additional !votes; please only vote once. JudgeRM (talk to me) 19:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - These were intended to be separate arguments, not votes. I did this knowing that Wikipedia is not a vote. I apologize for adding "Keep" each time, they were intended to add to the discussion rather than act as separate !votes as if they were from separate individuals. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, so I don't believe that striking them out is relevant in deciding the consensus as it is based solely on discussion. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; do not merge to Witold Waszczykowski. San Escobar has now his own life in the media, not only in direct relation with Witold Waszczykowski'blund Alain Schneider (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And it's SNOWing. Amisom (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – as said above, San Escobar now lives its own life. Wipur (talk) 22:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Atossava 08:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Article describes an interesting social phenomenon. The information provided about a fictional country is correct. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuYCxaiObDM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skwieraw (talk • contribs) 23:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - internet phenomenon Radmar (talk) 10:48, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

S Md Nauman[edit]

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

An Indian doctor/politician who has never held elected office. The article is orphaned, and was created by S.Md Nauman (talk · contribs), a single-purpose account with an obvious conflict of interest. Graham87 05:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No claims with evidences made of being elected ever. Fails WP:NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:31, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human Bio-data[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources (or really any sources at all) about this topic. The article is orphaned and its creator, Shah446 (talk · contribs), has only edited this article and an article about S Md Nauman which I am also about to nominate for deletion due to notability concerns. Graham87 05:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no RS's appear to be available. Likely OR Siuenti (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete candidate - no redeeeming features JarrahTree 23:30, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just an idea of some politician, nothing worthwhile for an encyclopedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:58, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2010 NCRHA Division II Collegiate Roller Hockey National Championships[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced, and has been for nearly 7 years. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Only primary sources which do not demonstrate notability. Full of redlinks and broken templates. Created as part of a large swath of pages to try to promote a sport by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable amateur sports event. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and all of the above reasoning. GauchoDude (talk) 13:14, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sars efiling[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT. WP is not a manual. scope_creep (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an encyclopedia article about the dominant method of filing tax returns in South Africa, not a manual. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and Redirect to South African Revenue Service. SARS efiling is a service from SARS; and not notably distinct from it. In the event it is kept, it should be moved to SARS efiling (all upper-case; see [19]). TJRC (talk) 22:59, 3 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) 01:36, 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 03:42, 13 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 Transwiki to Wikibooks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Beginner’s Guide to Beekeeping[edit]

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

Not encyclopedia material. Transwiki to Wikibooks as instructional material. — This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, transwiki per WP:NOTMANUAL. This page seems significantly more detailed than wikibooks:Beekeeping/Starting_Right, which it might replace or complement. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Nice work, let's put it where it makes sense.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - transwiki - Wikipedia isn't a manual or a place for personal essays. DrStrauss talk 09:38, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki It's actually well written and well referenced... but it's an essay. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks per WP:NOTHOWTO. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to pile on, but the lack of search engine hits plus a look at the page history (created paragraph by paragraph with some time between them, rather than in a large copy-paste) give me reasonable confidence that it is not a copyvio. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:25, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Major League Lacrosse Collegiate Draft[edit]

(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)~~

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

Unsourced with no context and no indication of notability. Just a list of names. No reason to have a list of draft picks for every year, particularly in this format. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:RAWDATA. Icebob99 (talk) 01:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pro lacrosse may not be most editors' interest but it's a notable professional sport followed closely by interested media, and its drafts are well covered. <"national lacrosse league" draft> yields almost 2000 hits in GNews and 750 hits in HighBeam. There is no good reason to wipe out this sourceable content, which is similar to the draft content we have for other sports leagues. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Arxiloxos: this is nothing against Lacrosse but the entire page is just a list of names... Compare it to 2014 NBA draft which not only has over 100 sources, but has actual content. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree these are not well done, and I also have to apologize for a lapse of attention in my prior post about which lacrosse league we're discussing here; I've corrected the findsources link above. I do think these pages are sourceable and improvable, given the hundreds of news hits that can be seen at GNews and HighBeam and full coverage in sources like uslaxmagazine.com. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google search turns up a number of sources reporting on the drafts. A number of colleges seem to think it's important enough to report in their university news (LeMoyne, Marquette, UPENN), draft picks have been reported on by local news (Syracuse), and you could even watch the 2015 draft live on ESPN. And that's just the first page of google results. I think, as a group, they are suitable for inclusion. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 09:24, 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 03:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The MLL is a significant enough league that individual drafts receive ample coverage in reliable sources, and as such are notable. Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. The current state of the article is irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:37, 17 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. (non-admin closure) Flat Out (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dioni Pinilla[edit]

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

Comment Nomination Withdrawn, nominated for CSD as previously deleted by AFD. Flat Out (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person. Passing coverage in a regional newspapers only, fails WP:GNG, WP:BLPNOTE, WP:NACTOR and WP:NARTIST. Note my edits on article review. Flat Out (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home Shop 18[edit]

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

advertisement, sourced to press releases. No indication of being a significant presence in its field. The other components of its parent company Network 18 and the ultimate holding company Reliance Industries need to be checked also . DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a well known brand in ecommerce space in India. If the article is written as advertisement, it should be improved with reliable sources added, but this does not warrant deletion. Homeshop18 stand alone passes GNG without the parent group notability.ChunnuBhai (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this case as although it may be known, there's enough to weigh the likely benefits here and we've been concerned as it is about the advertising motivations here, and considering there's a lot of zig-zag here in between company articles, it seems like coatracking. SwisterTwister talk 05:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As always begrudgingly; shopping channels are a scourge of television (and the scourge of WP:TV in turn), but this one has complete distribution throughout India and that gets it their WP:N points easily. Still, shred and gut all the WP:ADVERT and WP:COI content. Nate • (chatter) 07:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & optionally redirect to Network 18. Spammy content on an unremarkable shopping channel. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If need be can be stubified to remove WP:ADVERT content. But is a very notable channel and therefore warrants a keep according to me. Jupitus Smart 15:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely notable. Only the writing of article need improvements else this definitely qualifies wiki standards. Search on Google, everything is evidently notable and independent. Light2021 (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very obviously notable. Home Shop 18 has a wide distribution throughout India and has received more than enough coverage (even a quick Google search gives satisfactory results) to prove its notability. The problem of advert and promotional material is nothing that cannot be fixed. — Yash^talk stalk 06:14, 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 delete. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Azzaro (Company)[edit]

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

Unsourced advertising. The one link is to an entity which may be only a fragment of the original company DGG ( talk ) 03:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The french interwiki actually links to its founder. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as enough to show this only exists as a business listing and none of it was ever improved to show actual substance for our established policies, hence allowed deletion. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:11, 17 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GK Elite Sportswear[edit]

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

As stated by Piotrus, the available sources even in the last AfD were clear published and republished press releases, company announcements and listings, none of them are substantial and our policies are clear about this, including about the fact there's no inherited notability from anything, hence simply "Any sourcing" is not a keep basis alone. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No keep arguments beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS. Nobody seems to be able to point out to a single quality source. Passing mentions in Google, etc. do not suffice for WP:NCOMPANY, and claiming otherwise, well, fallacious. If anyone wants to vote keep, please go to the trouble of specifically linking to individual sources, and explaining why they are reliable, in-depth, represent significant coverage, etc. as requested by WP:NCORP and GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only in-depth coverage are local articles about the business. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable private company going about its business. Notability is not inherited from notable athletes who use the product. Content is advertorial in nature so WP:PROMO applies as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:51, 18 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hui-Hai Liu[edit]

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

In February of 2016, I added comments about Notability and COI to Talk:Hui-Hai_Liu:

There are no secondary sources that indicate that the person is notable. The article fulfills none of the requirements of WP:NACADEMICS.

The article was created from a editor who was not logged in. Most of the edits are from editors who were not logged in. The ones I checked seem to be from the San Francisco area. To improve this article, it would be helpful if there were more edits from editors who used named accounts.

Thus, I propose that this article be deleted. Cxbrx (talk) 05:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC) kvery odd with the formatting on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_January_6, could someone help? It seems like everything is indented under this article for deletion. I tried a couple of things, but don't want to mess up further. Cxbrx (talk) 05:57, 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 03:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 on GS cites. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but only because of the fellow, as the citations are only a high of the 1 "192", simply not enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GScholar shows an h-index of 30, which is more than sufficient for PROF C1. 200 academic citations to a single work is nothing to sneer at, but h-index, imperfect as it is, is a better gauge of the reach of an academic's work. --joe decker ^talk 17:12, 13 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geometric (company)[edit]

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

promotional article on non-notable company, sourced almsot entirely to press releases and Indian newspaper coverage clearly based on press releases. Nothing here is a RS for more than existence. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear advertising with the past signs showing it, thus the common signs our established policies for company advertising were violated, and that's enough said. SwisterTwister talk 05:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not a hosting service for investor prospectus materials on unremarkable companies. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of 5,000 companies listed on the Bombay exchange and 4,000 on the National exchange. Bearian (talk) 01:45, 18 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 List of Decepticons. T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laserbeak[edit]

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

This article does not currently establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Decepticons. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Unsourced fancruft. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:10, 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 03:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:01, 14 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 Transformers. T. Canens (talk) 13:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quintessons[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important, albeit background, group of characters in the Transformers universe. I'm not sure what the standard of notability for characters in the Transformers universe is, but this seems like a case of WP:IGNORINGATD.--Auric talk 14:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric:Please read WP:N. The topic needs multiple reliable third party sources discussing the topic in a non-trivial manner. In-universe importance plays no factor in something existing on Wikipedia. This article fails to meet that standard.TTN (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If theres no sources besides announcements and fan pages, then a separate page probably isn't warranted. Redirect it to Transformers or something suitable. ValarianB (talk) 16:19, 13 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 Autobots. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wreckers (Transformers)[edit]

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

This fail to establish notability. TTN (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 23:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Nothing but fancruft with no reliable sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:08, 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 03:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:59, 14 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Stern[edit]

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

Article which conflates the company with the man. Almost all source, which are poor, are about man, but not company. Fails WP:ORGCRITE and WP:ORG. scope_creep (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching for Banque Stern (in french) yields much better results : [20], [21]. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 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 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete This is the english wikipedia, not the French one. You can, however edit the article to include the French sources if you think that might help.Longevitydude (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a significant financial institution in France. Being the English encyclopedia should not mean we give special coverage to institutions in English speaking countries, short shrift to institutions in French speaking areas, or ignore French language sources. That is more what I would expect from the French-language Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- the article needs improvements, but one of the sources listed describes the bank's bankruptcy in 1995 as "the biggest banking bankruptcy of this end of the century". This is indicative of significance and notability. French sources are indeed permissible and are encouraged if they cover the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft as a compromise as it's clear here the article needs improvements for the necessary convincing, and allowed enough time. SwisterTwister talk 23:11, 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:52, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Bender[edit]

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

Bender was Miss Minnesota but that alone is not enough to justify an article. Her role in broadcasting I was able to find references to from her employer, but no 3rd party sources showing that she is actually notable for such. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 4 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, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 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 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She won the Miss Minnesota Pageant in 1992. She's also a broadcaster as well as worked as a television reporter and meteorologist on four different stations, KSTP-TV, KARE-11 TV, WCCO-TV and KMSP TV. [this is a 3rd party source] 208.79.11.74 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is that actually satisfying our own policies? Especially when the only listed source above is a clear PR? SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Just from reading the nomination, the topic is known publicly for roles in broadcasting, and we can assume based on newer related internet results that the topic received international attention for competing in the Miss America contest. Anyone appearing on public broadcast television on a major television station such as ABC KSTP, NBC KARE-11, CBS WCCO-TV, and Fox KMST has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time and is prima facie notable. Further, these two factors combine in determining notability.
WP:BEFORE D1 shows that the topic is found in two Google books, 2014 and 2015. [22] is a five-paragraph follow-up in 2014 that I found by searching for "Jo Rathmanner". That source states, "After winning the 1992 Miss Minnesota pageant, she competed at the 1993 Miss America Pageant and was selected as a talent winner for her performance on the fiddle. Rathmanner worked for news stations, including KTTC-TV in Rochester, in the the 1990s and 2000s before moving into teaching...'The [Miss America] program allowed me...the opportunity to play my fiddle in hundreds of different venues.' "
Further, notability is not an AfD factor here, as per WP:IGNORINGATD. In this regard the nomination had a duty to provide arguments both against merger, and using WP:R to provide an argument against redirection. While notability has no standing in Miss America Beauty Pageant AfDs, the current article only has one source, and verifiability is a core content policy. Unscintillating (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Longevitydude (talk) 02:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing to save the history of an unconvincing career when it was only mere participation and nothing else beyond it, there's numerous and numerous of participation, some which only participate in a few or nearly none at all, which equals no significance, and thus no substance in this case. We're not a model listing webhost and there certainly wouldn't be an article for each person, simply because it existed. SwisterTwister talk 05:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the word "significance", the WP:A7 "credible claim of significance" only requires that the article have a statement that "would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical" AfD discussion to !vote for keep. Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merriamwebster.com definition 9 for model is "one who is employed to display clothes or other merchandise" Beauty pageant contestants are not models. Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDLI states, "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted...Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 13:53, 16 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:38, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upasana Taku[edit]

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

non notable; the company may or may not be, but she seems to be engaged in routine management functions. That she gave an interview about the company is not notability DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable individual. Notability is not inherited from the company to it's founder. ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising with the clear motivations that's why this only ever existed. SwisterTwister talk 05:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing more than routine, trivial coverage Spiderone 10:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. 208.79.11.74 (talk) 06:40, 15 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. Almost no one has chimed in their opinions on the article. It is quite obvious that even after 2 relists, there is no consensus and relisting it for a third time would just be a waste of time. Thus, this is closed as no consensus with WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Knuttila[edit]

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

Knuttila was Miss Minnesota, but this alone is not enough to establish notability. The article only has one source that is independent but is just providing local coverage. I was able to find a few more local sources in my google search, but all connected to the Miss Minnesota win. I was also able to find a picture and caption from the Orlando Sentinel but that does not amount to indepth coverage. There is no coverage of Knuttila outside of this one event and no reason why we should have an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 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 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep WP:NPASR or Wrong venue Notability is not by itself an argument for deletion for this topic. I don't think that anyone cares enough to do the work to merge even if they think the topic is non-notable, so default to speedy keep, no argument for deletion. See WP:IGNORINGATD, WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, and WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rosalie Smith[edit]

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

Smith was Miss Wisconsin. All the coverage is either extremely excessively local, or if not 100% local from within Wisconsin and related to this one fact. No coverage moves beyond Wisconsin itself at a level to justify having an encyclopedia article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin sources are accepted by Wikipedia. As for whether or not there is a "level" justifying coverage, is this an IAR argument? Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:23, 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 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- trivia, fancruft, yada, yada. Could these articles perhaps be PRODed? K.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ITSCRUFT, which states, "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough for something to be deleted...Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion." Unscintillating (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is part of Dravecky's Miss America 2016 project, where this article was completed in July 2015. Here is what Dravecky said in August 2015.
Miss America 2016
It took longer than I'd hoped but 52 articles donw (including a dozen DYKs and another half-dozen pending) all solidly referenced means the Miss America 2016 pageant field is the first complete set of contestant articles all the way from Miss Alabama 2015 Meg McGuffin to Miss Wyoming 2015 Mikaela Shaw. (Why 52? DC and Puerto Rico.) Now if only we had some photos to go with these articles.... - Dravecky (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Great work, Dravecky! Thank you! Too bad the Virgin Islands pageant folded up shop this year, ha! Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, 35 inline citations, no applicable WP:DEL-REASONs, and none have been cited. Unscintillating (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- these 35 citations do not amount to notability; this is still an article on an unremarkable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, citations don't necessarily determine GNG notability, as they can include primary sources. But that is not what I said. 35 citations indicates quality of workmanship and attention to WP:V.
As for your words, "unremarkable subject", WP:N states, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity". Whether or not the sources should have remarked on the topic, they have done so. Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with WP:NOT as we're not a model listing and the article is based only from her mere participation in these events, not that there was otherwise significance in or apart from them, hence not substantial, and the information shows the career is still only based in this, thus too soon. As always, there's been consensus this would be best suited as part of a list, instead of separately. SwisterTwister talk 05:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While allowed by WP:N, why would a topic with a decent standalone article be better as part of a list? Unscintillating (talk) 19:35, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Latuff[edit]

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

Latuff was Miss Minnesota, but this is not enough to establish notability. Pretty much everything here is either the fairly local coverage from the Hastings Paper of the Mesabi Region Paper, coverage from internal Miss America organization sites, or one source is to her employer a local school district in Minnesota. We would need something either showing widespread notice either beyond the time of this one event or outside of Minnesota, notice that is substantial coverage (I put that because in other discussions people think a one line mention in a tabloid article about Miss America contestant actions is enough, and it is not), and my search for more sources on google came up with neither of those. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not Miss Minnesota by itself establishes notability, it is a title recognized in many places worldwide.
Dravecky wrote this to the existing GNG standard in which Minnesota sources are fine. They still are.
There is no "widespread notice" requirement.
Regarding the "one event" argument, the topic has been getting coverage since 2012 and a new article appeared in January 2017, and it has been explained more than once that Miss America contestants are always multiple events, including preliminary contests, the state pageant contest, multiple appearances during a one-year reign as titleholder, and an appearance at Miss America.
And if notability is your concern, you can reorganize the topics so that they aren't in standalone articles...see WP:IGNORINGATD. Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 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 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivia and fancruft on a subject with no indications of notability or significance; nothing stands out about this subject. Per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article is part of Dravecky's Miss America 2016 project, where this article was completed in August 2015. Here is what Dravecky said five days later in August 2015 at Wikiproject Beauty Pageants:
Miss America 2016
It took longer than I'd hoped but 52 articles donw (including a dozen DYKs and another half-dozen pending) all solidly referenced means the Miss America 2016 pageant field is the first complete set of contestant articles all the way from Miss Alabama 2015 Meg McGuffin to Miss Wyoming 2015 Mikaela Shaw. (Why 52? DC and Puerto Rico.) Now if only we had some photos to go with these articles.... - Dravecky (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Great work, Dravecky! Thank you! Too bad the Virgin Islands pageant folded up shop this year, ha! Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And I agree, Dravecky's Miss America 2016 project is a treasure. Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a survey of the variety of sources available from Google news. For many, I've provided location information here:

Mesabi Daily News (Virginia, MN)
Hasting Star Gazette (Hastings, MN)
Enstarz
citypages.com (Minneapolis)
WDIO-TV (Duluth, MN))
Post-Bulletin (Rochester, MN)
Crow River Media (Hutchinson, MN)
International Business Times
Grand Forks Herald (Grand Forks, ND)
Brainerd Daily Dispatch (Brainerd, MN)
Daily Mail (dailymail.co.uk)

MSR News Online (Twin Cities, MN)
Morris Sun Tribune (Morris, MN)
Perham Focus (Perham, MN)
Billboard (magazine)
Vineland Daily Journal (New Jersey)
Gossip Cop (New York City)
Yahoo News
Press of Atlantic City
chron.com (Houston, TX)
Hattiesburg American (Hattiesburg, MS)
In These Times (Chicago, IL)

Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, 35 inline citations, available sources well more than satisfy GNG. Unscintillating (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:10, 16 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Debus[edit]

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

Debus is Miss Delaware 2016. The coverage of her is all local and related to this one event, it is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify having an article on her. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. Won Miss Delaware and will compete in Miss America, clearly significant in her field. Over 20 sources in the article and a google news search returns 87, many of which are not trivial coverage and focus on more than just one event: take this story about her 3 months after she won Miss Delaware published in the state capitol's daily newspaper. Just because they're local sources doesn't mean they don't qualify for the GNG. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Winning Miss Delaware and competing in Miss America are all one event. The state capitol of Delaware is a very small city, its daily newspaper not very significant. The clear turn of discussion on this issue as shown when it was discussed on the beauty pageants wikiproject page is that the coverage needs to be either non-local, or to go beyond coverage of beauty pageants, which the coverage here does not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep It doesn't matter the size of the state, whether it's Rhode Island or Alaska what difference does the size of a state make in terms of notability? 208.79.11.74 (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable state-level pageant career; per prior outcomes, such articles are routinely deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, which states, "Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable.
WP:IGNORINGATD further states, "The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. To validly argue for deletion, editors need to additionally advance separate arguments against both merger and redirection, on relevant grounds." Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as only claims of significance are for participation which itself means nothing since these events have such different levels, nearly anyone could have an article at their basis, even ones who never advanced to the next events, hence not significant. With this, we're not a model listing webhost. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "claims of significance", as per the essay, WP:Credible claim of significance, "Any statement which, if reliably sourced, would be likely to persuade some of the commentators at a typical articles for deletion discussion to keep the article is a claim of significance." Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As per Google definition 3, a model is "3. a person, typically a woman, employed to display clothes by wearing them." Beauty pageant contestants are not models. Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review of Google News shows that the 2017 Miss America contestants, specifically including the topic here, got coverage in USA Today, Yahoo India News, Canada, Germany's Welt and more than one UK outlet. Note that it is not necessary to refute the assertion that coverage is local, because local coverage contributes to notability under WP:GNG. I did some minor cleanups on the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this "being covered" in the UK press something like this [23] article from the daily mail, with a picture of Debus emphasizing her shoes? This is not the type of significant coverage notability is built on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what your point is, so you need to explain the relevance. When I search Google News for "Amanda Debus" "Daily Mail" I get three articles: 10 July 2015, 8 September 2016, and 10 September 2016. Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the standard is significant mention, not passing mention. These are all passing mentions, not significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG doesn't use the term "passing mention" or "significant mention". Nor does WP:GNG require prose. It says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention..." While the coverage in any one picture with a caption in WP:GNG terms is minimal, it is not trivial...it is direct and detailed.
I looked at the 10 July 2015 article, and in there you can see facial blemishes in the "nomakeup" picture. The point for notability remains that there are two closeup pictures of the topic, with captions, in an overseas newspaper. Unscintillating (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures with captions are never enough to make someone notable. Being able to see "facial blemishes" is not at all a plus. If people actually paid attention to the value of arguments this article would have already been deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not refute the point that this one British article is minimal WP:GNG significant coverage, and thus contributes to WP:GNG notability; WP:GNG states, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
The argument seems to agree that while that is what the GNG guideline says, anyone reading this AfD should just know what the GNG should be saying. But if that is correct, why not state what the GNG should be saying? Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Similar to SwisterTwister above, these contests do not automatically result in notability for every person who wins them each year. 1292simon (talk) 00:31, 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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pebble TV[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a national -- in fact, international -- cable channel and therefore meets WP:BROADCAST. We have more specific guidelines than GNG and COMPANY in cases like this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only sources cited are YouTube and the channel's own website. That's wholly inadequate. It may as well be recursive and include its own wikipedia page too. I'd say unless there is a reliable secondary source, there's no justification for it to have it's own entry rather than be included on a list of Dutch TV stations, it should be either removed or merged.Pupsbunch (talk) 21:13, 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 03:04, 13 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 Earl Sweatshirt. (non-admin closure) — Yash^talk stalk 06:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Cressida[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. There are a number of mentions in reliable sources announcing the formation of this company, such as this and this, but little else. Does not appear to meet the criteria of a company worth notice by Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Earl Sweatshirt as with majority of record labels associated with hip hop artists this is not notable on its own. Karst (talk) 11:14, 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 02:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earl Sweatshirt (instead of merging). I support a redirect here. However, I do not support a merge as the content is unsourced. It also leaves a messy attribution redirect permanently. I would suggest to redirect this article with history preserved. That allows editors to lookup the history and find sources and add the information if required. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earl Sweatshirt; Wikipedia does not need two articles on these closely related subject. No reason for a merge, as the content is unsourced. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:13, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meera Deosthale[edit]

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

Unremarkable actress. Google search finds mostly social media hits and this Wikipedia article. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she seems as remarkable as any :) Deosthale has coverage in several major newspapers: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], and some interviews that help less [30]. [31], [32]. Yvarta (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note only one reasonable reference in the lot (4). See below analysis. Nothing suggests that WP:NACTOR criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 22:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Discusses 5 things about the actress like ... she is close to her mother. Nothing indicates notability and this is basically a press release.

2. Just talks about the actress fainting and being told to get bed rest. Again, agent talking to bored reporter.

3. Mentions the subject once in passing and does not indicate any notability.

4. Good reference about a particular role for the subject in a TV show.

5. Maratha Warrior King, Paras Arora, denies dating subject. Even if he was, what actor is not dating a starlet?

6. Rehash of 2.

I would agree some of this content matter is rather "silly" or human interest-focused rather than full of gravitas. That said, the editorial staffs of major newspapers found her notable enough to assign paid reporters to rustle up articles on her, and the coverage in each case is more than passing. Excluding perhaps 3. Yvarta (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add that since she has worked in 4 popular shows, and played female leads in two. Thus, she should be given recognition for her work in Indian television. Could you please explain why you think she's an unremarkable actress? Robert McClenon (talk) Sikhwarriorspirit (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the nominator to prove a negative? If you think she is notable, per the WP:NACTOR criteria, please add suitable authoritative references to the article. The question is not whether the actress is "unremarkable", but whether the subject is notable. No references indicate that.--Rpclod (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rpclod, perhaps you could explain how the Times of India and India Today aren't authoritative? Yvarta (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, evidence of notability is provided by "significant coverage in reliable sources". I am not saying that those sources do not qualify as reliable sources in general. However, context and significance are also important. Entertainment tabloid style coverage in otherwise reliable sources is often not "significant" - especially where it appears to have been placed by a publicist. Much coverage listed is trivial and not substantive. Please note that I have not !voted because the subject could be notable, I have just not found significant coverage that proves notability. Frankly, I would love to see better references in the article that do show notability, especially regarding the issues that Gab4gab discusses below.--Rpclod (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I generally see your point. However, "appears to be written by a publicist" I think should not be relevant, because in these articles, the authors credited are not publicists, but paid reporters with traceable credentials. If a journalist writes an article in a reliable source that we subjectively feel seems akin to tabloid fodder, that is simply our subjective opinion as editors, not an actual judgement on the usability of the article. Otherwise, anyone could randomly argue that "any" article seems like it was written by a PR agent, and attempt to use that as a subjective rationale for removal of sourced information. Yvarta (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant roles in two notable television shows (Udaan and Dilliwaali Thakur Girls) meets element #1 of WP:NACTOR. Gab4gab (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lead roles in two shows (Dilli Wali Thakur Gurls, Udaan) satisfies WP:NACTOR. 1292simon (talk) 00:42, 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Pretenders[edit]

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 22:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or, if preferred and a suitable target can be identified, merge. No indication of real-world notability. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to List of Decepticons. Minor fictional characters with no reliable sources, like many of the various other Transformers character articles. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per monster lack of notability. Longevitydude (talk) 02:26, 16 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. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Britt[edit]

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

Nothing for actual independent notability and substance and not satisfying the applicable standards as she's not significant as an actress and also then our policies as we're not IMDb, overall not enough for acceptance. SwisterTwister talk 01:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOT. Article content does not suggest its subject passes WP:GNG. DrStrauss talk 23:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:24, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finland women's national inline hockey team[edit]

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

Only contains primary sources which do not establish notability. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all See withdrawn AFD (cc: Graeme Bartlett). National teams competing at the highest level of the sport. Hmlarson (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment thanks for cutting down the list and not renominating the Namibia team. I will note that WP:SPORTCRIT does not apply to sports teams, so it is not relevant. Also in the references I found that exist earlier, the United States men's national inline hockey team is notable due to many newspaper articles on the topic. I have not checked the others, but it should be a keep for the US mens team. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. National teams in every sport or activity don't necessarily have notability if they don't have the coverage to go with it. —Мандичка^YO 😜 07:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all are equal, this is an inappropriate grouping. Canada, USA, and Finland get significant attention anyway.18abruce (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. As noted above, these articles are not equivalent and should be treated separately. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply being a national team is not a reason for keeping an article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada national korfball team where an article was deleted. However, some of these teams may have third party coverage and I feel it would be hard to evaluate them as one. Best to nominate one by one initially. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I broadly share Lemongirl942's view, but instead of coverage I think the main factor for inclusion should be its record. Perhaps we can set the criteria as having participated in IIHF Inline Hockey World Championship. Timmyshin (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HMLarson. The national anything of anything within something inherently notable and externally documented would be in itself notable at first glance. South Nashua (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @South Nashua: so the National pie eating competition gets a wikipedia page now? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zackmann08:} - First basketweaving, now pie eating and yet these specific articles are about national sports teams competing internationally at the highest level. Fair comparisons? No. Hmlarson (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Zackmann08: If the pie eating gets significant external coverage and is being done at a notable level, then yes. Case in point: Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest, just replace the pie with hot dogs. South Nashua (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National teams competing at the highest level of the sport. -DJSasso (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note for all those commenting that they are perfoming at the highest level of competition... The pages for the competitions themselves have been deleted as not notable.... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussions were those? Because if world championship pages were deleted than that definitely needs to go for a new discussion. Unfortunately since you spammed so many inline articles for deletion at once a bunch that should have in no way been deleted have slipped through the cracks. It is going to take so much work to get much of these fixed and put back up. Such damage has been caused. -DJSasso (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind the fact that the individual pages for the IIHF competitions themselves were deemed notable and have been kept as well as the template for these championships. Why lie here? Those commenting should probably note that, as well as the nominator routinely posting false information on related PRODs and AFDs (" Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left").18abruce (talk) 10:18, 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. T. Canens (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Ngawati[edit]

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

fails WP:RLN as has not played in a Super League or international match. Prod was contested on the grounds that he is a "rugby union international" but if so, this is not sourced or mentioned in the article. Mattlore (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Probably WP:TOOSOON 86.3.174.49 (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment *IF* this guy has played Rugby Union at International level, he may be notable enough for an article. I agree that just signing for Toronto Wolfpack is not enough to pass by itself. I think the nominator should consider asking for input from WP:RU to see if there is any claim to notability from their PoV. Bwfcwarrior (talk) 22:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG and has significant coverage independent of the subject (in the local newspaper)

Shortcuts

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
- The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
- Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,^[1] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"^[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.^[4]
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.^[5]

If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article. Getmefoodbb (talk) 12:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best that the article is sandboxed until he plays, as the Wolfpack have a better squad than some SL squads and other comparable sports and their rationales.Fleets (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources present in the article, as written, are not enough to demonstrate that the topic has received the depth or breadth of coverage necessary to pass WP:GNG. #1 is a user-generated database that includes all players on any rugby league team that exists at all, and is thus not a source that can assist notability; #2 is a routine piece of human interest coverage in his local hometown newspaper, at a time when he was still only aspiring to play at any level higher than the local high school league; and #3 just namechecks his existence a single time in an article which is not about him. A person does not automatically pass GNG the moment one or two reliable sources make it possible to nominally verify that he exists — the context in which the coverage is being given still has to satisfy the subject-specific notability criterion for his field of endeavour. The sourcing shown here is simply not good enough to hand him a GNG pass, if the only source that's substantively about him is local coverage in a "local teen aspires to be famous someday" context.
User:Getmefoodbb is also advised that in future, it is not appropriate to cut and paste the entire text of a notability guideline statement into the AFD discussion verbatim — you merely link to that statement. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.
^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

Delete. As per nom, fails WP:RLN. 1292simon (talk) 00:49, 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.

[1] Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

[5] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]