< 22 December	24 December >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Barrett[edit]

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

Religious figure that doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The references and external links on the article all suffer from the same problem - they're not independent of the subject of the article. Reference 1 is to the subject's own music website. Reference 2 is to a Google Books page for a book with a blurb beginning, "Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online." (WP:NOTSOURCE). Reference 3 is to another Google Books page, for a book the subject wrote, published by self-publisher AuthorHouse. The first external link goes to a site which indicates at the bottom of the page that it is affiliated with an organization that the article indicates the subject is co-founder of. The second external link is the subject's music site again. The third external link is from a site that indicates on their about page that it does not have the resources to independently verify all of the data it receives and posts. (I am aware that external links do not have to be independent to be external links, I'm just mentioning them to address the question as to whether or not they can serve to establish notability.)
As for my own check, the only thing I found on Google or Google News about this Ruth Barrett is the site that is the third external link mentioned above. I found several articles about Ruth Barrett the composer, and obituaries for four other women named Ruth Barrett, but not anything that appears to be significant independent coverage of this Ruth Barrett. Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paganism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have not been able to find sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:GNG.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent sourcing. Bishonen | talk 01:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Ifnord (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I don't think there's any need for this to continune any further, especially as it's a BLP and the creator (and only Keep voter) has been blocked. Black Kite (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fabian Gonzalez[edit]

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

This severe BLP concern is a WP:POINTy response to editor Cullen328 [1] removing the article creator's attempts to push an agenda. However, this was a minor arrest and Wikipedia is not a newspaper; anything of actual use, as the article creator was told when his edits were reverted, can be included in the article about the fire. At the moment we just have debunked claims and a WP:BLP1E. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I saw this entry earlier but did not fully consider the context. I can't see any way that this subject is notable outside this one questionable event. EricEnfermero (Talk) 00:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why are so many editors working to whitewash arson attacks now? He was obviously arrested for trying to start a destructive fire, not keeping warm. This homeless man has no lawyer but many editors working to hide this national story. This is hardly a minor arrest as it was in the same area and shortly after huges fires that killed 41 people, and authorities have not completely excluded the possibility that he, or somebody like him might be a domestic terrorist that did start the larger fire even if he was only arrest for a small fire, it is remarkable that such a man known to police for starting a series of fires has not even been called a person of interest. CNBC covered that the news even caused PGE stock to spike. The arrest has been covered by ICE, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Huffington Post, Mercury News, several TV stations and anti-immigration group CIS so the only reason for deleting this article would be to censor or cover up the incident entirely. The article as it stands is well balanced between anti- and pro- immigrant and arsonist theory positions, and some of the nominators have displayed a pattern of minimizing coverage of crimes that look like obvious terrorist attacks. ICE implies that Gonzalez is a dangerous illegal alien just the the case of Steinle shooting in San Francisco so this is an important notable topic. If the New York Times says it's not a true story, then Wikipedia can that's what they said, not pretend it never happened. Bachcell (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- "Might be a domestic terrorst". "Him, or someone like him". "just like the [other] case". WP:WEASEL, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:OTHERSTUFF, and even if 100% true, WP:BLP1E. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd go further and say if you can't see why what 'someone like him' may or may not do is zero justification for the article on the person, you shouldn't be editing wikipedia let alone BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as notable for one event only--Rusf10 (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Article appears to have been created to WP:POVPUSH. Wikipedia is WP:NOT the news, a crime blotter, or a place to right great wrongs. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Clearly this is a case of WP:BIO1E. A quickly extringuished fire a Wikipedia article does not make. This miserably fails WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7. The article, ostensibly a biography, makes no assertion that its subject is important. (His arrest may or may not be important, but this is a biography, not an article about the arrest.) — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR. Attempts to link this person to the fires that killed 41 people and destroyed thousands of homes are spurious and unworthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. We do not host biographies of people arrested for but not yet convicted of minor crimes. The author's comparison to the completely unrelated Steinle case shows that this editor is here to push an ugly agenda. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is way more of 'news' interest than encyclopedic content, the appropriate place for this is Wikinews.–Ammarpad (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, which applies to "low-profile individuals". It's harder to imagine a lower-profile individual than an innocent private citizen the general public has only heard of because they were latched on to by conspiracy theorists. Even if those theorists had a point, there still shouldn't be an article per WP:CRIME since there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person on the event that Mr. Gonzalez was unfairly associated with.Egsan Bacon (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to potential issues of notability and the fact that the person did not commit a major crime, thus giving me the belief that it does not need to exist. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:53, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear BLPCRIME / BIO issue. I will note that making an article on the false allegations might be possible (including stock price moves, etc.). There are quite a few sources for this, e.g. - NYT - however there would be little need to name the homeless man on which this was pinned - definitely not in the title and quite possibly not in the body.Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 24 December 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 the arguments offered by Megalibrarygirl. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Friedman[edit]

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

This article reeks of COI. The sources are almost exclusively press releases published in trade journals (I have placed ad copy in trade journals masquerading as articles, it is trivially easy). There are a few quotes of Friedman, but actually nothing substantive about' her. This article is basically an advert. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use more sources, but what part of “Nation’s Buisness” or the “Chicago-Sun Times” are press releases? ElonTesla (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC) — ElonTesla (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Rocckker13 (talk • contribs) and has been blocked indefinitely.[reply]

It's churnalism. PR puff recycled. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Call center consultant, of which there are many. Not notable. The title indicates that this is a BLP. Fails the standard for GNG. Rhadow (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BLP of a person who teaches how to work at a call center is non-encyc. Agricola44 (talk) 21:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources are quotes of advice given professionally and do not demonstrate notability of the subject. Article is WP:PROMOTIONAL. ~Kvng (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Changing my vote based on new information. See below. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an add article for her business,masquerading as a biogrpahy, because the guidelines for notability of businesses are much better held to than the guidelines for notability of people, even though BLP rules should mean it is the other way around.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here are several RS biographies of her and her work. St. Louis Post Dispatch 1986, Forbes 2017, Santa Fe New Mexican 1985, Honolulu Advertiser 1987, Quad City Times 1982, St. Louis Jewish Light 1978. I've added these to the article, removed puffery and fluff. She was a well-known local business woman and actress before The Telephone Doctor. After that, she continues to be covered. Passes GNG. Pinging @Rhadow, Agricola44, Kvng, and Johnpacklambert: to take another look now that the article is cleaned up and sourced better. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability demonstrated in newspaper sources posted by Megalibrarygirl. Any remaining WP:PROMOTIONAL issues can be addressed though editing anchored by these new sources. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to Megalibrarygirl for the referencing a clean up, which has provided sufficient sourcing to meet WP:BIO and WP:GNG.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new references clearly indicate notability; the article still needs work to remove puffery. Ifnord (talk) 18:25, 30 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Werner Erhard & Associates v. Christopher Cox for Congress[edit]

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

This civil case sets no legal precedent and is not notable. It’s about a minor court case that was brought and dismissed. All of the sourcing was a the time of the event and there’s been no coverage since. At first glance it may look like there is a lot of sourcing here, but taking a deeper look, there are not enough verifiable references that deal with the lawsuit (the actual topic of the article) to meet WP:GNG. The majority of the sourcing has nothing to do with the case. Most of the article is not about the lawsuit itself, but is a reiteration of complaints about the conduct of the campaigns. There is a lot of sourcing which relates to these criticisms, but not much dealing with the basis of the lawsuit, and arguments about politics are not notable events for Wikipedia articles. What sources do exist covered the case as it happened – there has been no coverage in reliable secondary sources about it since 1989 as far as I can tell. NerudaPoet (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete. Any person could take a relatively minor case and make it appear to be a big deal by citing extensively to the interests involved. However, we need to have a tighter standard for cases than this. No legal precedent was set, and nothing of legal importance happened here. bd2412 T 18:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Erhard and Landmark are sued regularly. We argued a similar case a couple months back. Court filings are meaningless; they are full of hyperbole (but they make great newspaper copy). The only thing that matters is the judgement. Nothing behind these curtains. Rhadow (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is more a rehash of a primary campaign under a different name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is absolutely no notability standard that a legal case needs to "set precedent" to be notable. Many death penalty appeals do not "set precedent", but that does not mean the cases are not notable. Buffalo Creek did not "set precedent" - it was settled out of Court, but it is indisputably notable. Most notable civil cases do not "set precedent" - this is an absurd and fictitious standard, and any argument for why this article should be deleted should be made based on actual notability policies. The article clearly meets WP:GNG based on the sources already cited.Seraphim System ^(talk) 23:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thirty-six references appear to give this article notability but, as BD2412 points out, the references do not cite the case but events around it. I agree that there should for a notability guide for legal cases; if it doesn't set precedent or is widely cited it isn't notable. Ifnord (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that the award in question is not sufficient for notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Tarantal[edit]

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

Fails GNG and JOURNALIST, in terms of notability. She's just an on-air journalist (as was I) for a TV station that does not have national reach or significance. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 23:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think she does pass WP:JOURNALIST, according to WCVB's website http://www.wcvb.com/news-team/a4ea45c7-7a85-465d-b3bc-ccc6747b9007 she won an Emmy award.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: she may have been part of an award-winning team effort on a story -- that alone does not overcome the deficit in notability. Quis separabit? 01:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Rms125a's observation aside, it's longstanding consensus (this being something that crops up fairly often at AfD) that the award level that triggers notability are national awards such as the Primetime Emmy Award and the Daytime Emmy Award, not the regional-level New England Emmy Awards (which is one of twenty regional chapters). Ravenswing 02:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regional emmys are not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 30 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amélie Company[edit]

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

Amélie Company is an advertising agency which fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG. I cannot find in depth coverage in any regional or national independent source, though its ad campaign for the Colorado Department of Transportation seems to have been applauded. The article reads like an advertisement and was created by a one purpose account. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam. The awards listed are not significant and well known. Such content belongs on the company web site, not here -- WP:NOTSPAM. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable; trivial, promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or merge If it was just the award I might agree, but the Company was selected by The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE) to develop public education on legal marijuana use after a "competitive application process" — which basically makes them a public contractor. Their campaign did receive coverage in CBS and Huffington Post as well as local Denver papers. Seraphim System ^(talk) 04:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only good source is one article by the Denver Post. Ifnord (talk) 14:07, 31 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pär Öberg[edit]

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

Minor politician in small town. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. reddogsix (talk) 20:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here the key is his council seat. That is notable per WP:GNG. Article needs improvements and possible expansion, but that is not a reason for deletion and AfD is not a clean-up service. Also Ludvika can not be described as a "small town" it has about 15,000 citizens and has city status. BabbaQ (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you read WP:POLITICIAN' because clearly you do not understand its requirements. The requirements in item 1 state, "Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." A council seat does not fall into any of these categories. BTW-15,000 is a small town. WP:GNG, not even close. reddogsix (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" (PG, NRK, Aftonbladet, etc) Spikegray (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide evidence of either. reddogsix (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link at the top of the page under "Sources" called "News". If you click on that link you will see he has articles written about him in the publications I've mentioned. Spikegray (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Spikegray has been blocked as a sock that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Bishonen | talk 13:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG says nothing about council seats, the applicable policy is WP:POLITICIAN which shows us that holders of minor political office such as a seat on the municipal council are not notable based on that. No other claim to notability, and GNG is not met as there is not significant press coverage about him. I can find one or two articles in local papers about him being charged with hate speech, or being excluded from the local union, but that doesn't mean he meets GNG. The articles in Göteborgs-Posten and Expressen (which are larger/nationwide papers) are not about Öberg, they just mention his name. --bonadea contributions talk 12:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some mentions, but not enough. Some media attention with Öberg as primary subject when NRM got a municipal council seat and again when Öberg was expelled from the electritians' union [2], but not enough for WP:GNG. The municipal council seat doesn't give notability. Sjö (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being one of the leading figures of a major political movement in Northern Europe, Pär Öberg is notable enough for a Wiki article. GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 16:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please prove your claims. Just saying so is not proof. Please demonstrate how the individual meets Wikipedia notability. reddogsix (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaius, I fixed your indents below, hope you don't mind. Please prove that Nazism is "a major political movement in Northern Europe". Your own long list of sources, which all AFAICS *execrate* NRM, prove on the contrary that it's an abhorred fringe movement except in Bizarro world. When the national coordinator against violent extremism expresses concerns that your leaders have access to firearms, you list that as a reference. You list complaints about NRM and Per Öberg stealing a seat in Ludvika through a coup as proof that he's notable. Etc. Is there a reference talking about a "major political movement in Northern Europe"? No. You're the first person I've seen call Nazism that. You do realize that Wikipedia is not for Nazi propaganda, don't you? (PS, it wasn't a good idea to use "reflist" at AfD — please use direct http links as for instance in this listing — but now that it's here, please, people who add comments, let the reflist code stay at the bottom of the page. The list it generates is so long that readers won't realize there are more comments below it — I know I didn't.) Bishonen | talk 09:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

1. He and the organization he's a leading figure in^[1] have been mentioned in (and have been the main subject of) enough news articles to be considered notable.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]
2. NRK (Norway's biggest news channel) made a documentary about his organization, in which he appeared several times.^[11]
3. He is spoken about on national television (along with other figures within the NRM)^[12]
4. The place he holds a seat in has city-status. It's not a "small town".

GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED) which means that members of a notable organisation aren't automatically notable themselves. As for the references, only in the Sveriges Radio link is Öberg the main subject, the other links focus on the organisation or NRM's actions. Also, the four Allehanda links are just rehashes of one and the same intervju with Öberg (about the NRM, not about himself). And the seat in the municipality council doesn't mean he's notable, no matter how big the municipality is (but anyway, Ludvika's population is well below the average in Sweden and there is no official city-status in Sweden). Sjö (talk) 09:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited? He has a council seat which is notable. Sources are there that confirms what is in thr article. You are wrong here.BabbaQ (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again, you need to read WP:POLITICIAN because clearly you do not understand its requirements - a council seat does not meet the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN and no, notability is NOT inherited. reddogsix (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But you claim that the seat is not notable, still you refer to NOTINHERITED. What is there to inherit if the seat is completely non-notable? This person is a known figure within politics, perhaps for the wrong reason,i.e nazism). But still WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean-up service either.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reference to WP:NOTINHERITED refers to associated organizations, not the council seat. It is oblivious you do not understand WP:POLITICIAN, the seat does not meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN - if you feel I am wrong, please point out which specific statement in WP:POLITICIAN indicates that - just saying so does not make it so. I don't know what you mean by "AfD is not a clean-up service either." An AFD is a manner in which to remove articles that do not meet Wikipedia standards for inclusion - clearly this is such an article. reddogsix (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a seat on a municipal council does not meet WP:NPOL, and there's nothing better. Coverage is in passing or routine. Name can be redirected to NRM, as is typically done with such minor groups. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well then there's a little bit of a paradox, isn't there? It's notable as per WP:GNG. GaiusoftheJulii (talk) 06:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NRM is notable per GNG, yes. (I assume that's what you mean by "it"). That's not under discussion here. Where is the paradox? --bonadea contributions talk 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

His council place is notable. And make him a figure in Swedish politics. He has a seat in a city size constituate. BabbaQ (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is oblivious you do not understand WP:POLITICIAN, the seat does not meet the standards of WP:POLITICIAN - if you feel I am wrong, please point out which specific statement in WP:POLITICIAN indicates that - just saying so does not make it so. reddogsix (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he was on the council of a place with under 15,000 people. Even the mayors of such places are well below notability level, council members even more so, and other sources go nowhere in establishing him as at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. A few news stories in local (allehanda.se) and free (metro.se) newspapers does not make one notable. Appearing "several times" in a documentary that is not about you does not make one notable. Being on a municipal council of a place with fewer than 15,000 residents absolutely does not make one notable whether it calls itself a city of not. (WP:POLOUTCOMES has this to say about members of city councils: City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Ludvika is obviously not an "internationally famous metropolitan area" whether one calls it a city or not.) Egsan Bacon (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Egsan Bacon. Ifnord (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project Jenny, Project Jan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable band; article is basically a promo-style advert (on self-produced EP and website downloads). Quis separabit? 20:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to be promotion or self-promotion in aim, perhaps trying to manufacture notability elewhere.--Mevagiss (talk) 17:47, 30 December 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) 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shamas Rehman[edit]

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

No significant coverage for him. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Störm (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: concur entirely with nominator. This is fancruft in the format of a very badly produced curriculum vitae/resume. Quis separabit? 20:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Barring the author find any number of more significant sources. ElonTesla (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indicated any notable topics for WP:BIO. SA 13 Bro (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quis separabit?. sami ^talk 08:19, 24 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karam Hussain[edit]

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

To be notable one should be mayor of major city. Fails WP:NPOL test. Störm (talk) 18:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Delete it! This article is of no significance! 92.17.88.180 (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: minor politician -- thoroughly lacking in notability. Quis separabit? 20:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:59, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found some of the references 1 2 3 sami ^talk 08:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding them. But look some sources will exist but most likely in vanity press or tabloid journalism and this is the case clearly here. If you consider WP:10YT test, you will see no one will care who was mayor of this local district. You can see WP:NPOL which clearly says, a politician will be notable only if he is an elected member of the parliment or a mayor of a 'major city', not a local town or a district. Thanks. Störm (talk) 15:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borough mayors in England are selected on a yearly rotation among the councillors, so that basically the most senior person on the council who hasn't been mayor yet (or has gone the longest time since his or her first stint) automatically gets the post for a year — but Wikipedia does not extend a presumption of notability to that sort of mayor, but only considers directly-elected executive mayors notable as a rule. And any mayor of anywhere can always simply be expected to receive in coverage in his or her local media, so simply being able to show two or three local media hits doesn't cut it as a "keep anyway because GNG" argument. Nothing here, either in the substance or the sourcing on offer, is enough. Bearcat (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this position is more like head of a city council in the US, even the mayor of my city of Sterling Heights, Michigan is directly elected, although he is a figure head since the city is run by the city manager. We deleted an article on the person who was mayor for about 20-years until his death. While the borough here is about four times as big as Sterling Heights, the rotating mayorship for one year is just not enough for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ifnord (talk) 14:12, 31 December 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) 18:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ch Muhammed Saeed[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman with no coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 92.17.88.180 (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:55, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete No notability, promotional biography without any reference. sami ^talk 08:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of sources to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no minimum sources to pass WP:BIO Genome$100 (talk) 09:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Source searches are only providing passing mentions; does not meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:01, 29 December 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Matthews (supercentenarian)[edit]

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

The individual represented in this article received a brief burst of attention as the oldest man in the United States, which tapered off after his death. Of the five sources in this article as of the nomination, two are from the same local source, one is an obituary, and one is about his sister. I have been unable to find the level of coverage that would satisfy the requirements of WP:N. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 18:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Typical longevity fanfluff which fails GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 19:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to List of the verified oldest men where he should be listed. Per nom and above. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPAGE. Take out the longevity fluff that strains to pad this article (living through WW1, WW2, etc) and you're left with the bare supercentenarian basics (name, born, had kids, oldest <country> man, died). CommanderLinx (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:45, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG. WP:NOPAGE also relevant. Fluff piece if ever I saw one. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the article talks of wars that happened during the subjects lifetime without in any way indicating how they were relevant to his life, he is an extreme example of being non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 27 December 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) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Adnan Ibrahim[edit]

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

Sadly Fulbright Doctoral Scholarship is not enough to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:43, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. sami ^talk 08:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a web site for his adjunct position at Georgetown [3] that sheds a bit more light on who he is and what he does, but provides no notability. I agree with the nominator that the Fulbright is not enough, and it's all we have. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 29 December 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) 18:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Siddiqi[edit]

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

His notability remains dubious. Fails WP:NPOL. Störm (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:38, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources and fails to pass WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of the notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Looking.Winged Blades^Godric 16:05, 27 December 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 Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Commando Battalion (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

There are no references in this article and has been the case for over a year. There are no news media reports or any book mention which verify the existence of this battalion. I might have missed out Bengali based sources here but having no English media coverage is surprising. At best, we can merge this into Para-Commando Brigade. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge into Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army). This page has virtually the same content as 3rd Para-Commando Battalion. Is there a page for a 1st battalion and, if so, does it exist?--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gaarmyvet The page exists here 1st Para-Commando Battalion it contains a lot of uncited info and some history info based largely on a single source. If you compare that page with Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army), which is parent organization for all these battalions, there is a lot of repetition. I think there is a case there of merging with the parent article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree (Changing my input.) Battalions don't typically get pages, anyway.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 01:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army). There is no need for separate 1st Para-Commando Battalion, 2nd Commando Battalion (Bangladesh), 3rd Para-Commando Battalion. The parent article should mention battalions basing, formation, and actions when appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 09:17, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to brigade for now Without prejudice. If the battalions end up involved in notable fighting/operations on their own in future, then break them out by all means. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:50, 24 December 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) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CE Destinations[edit]

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

This feels very spammy. The article contains no reliable sources, nor can I find any for this company. bd2412 T 16:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No WP:RS found which can support this primary-sourced article. The site is also unrated on Alexa and appears to have minimal social media presence. Fails WP:NWEB, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources at all, completely sourced to the company's own website. Advertising-type text. Bishonen | talk 02:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Fails WP:SPIP. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 30 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Heart Catholic Church (Fillmore, Iowa)[edit]

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

This article does not look to meet the bar set at WP:NCHURCH. Dolotta (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Looks like a typical NN local congregation to me. Unfortunately, the guideline WP:NCHURCH has been cut down to be too minimal to be worthwhile. There used to be more criteria that might have made a church notable, though they were not accepted. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, and looks like it would be difficulty to find any. Does not meet the guidelines on WP:NCHURCH. (I may be biased though because those pictures kinda creep me out). —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:03, 31 December 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) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Caccioppoli Jr.[edit]

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

Was PROD, but tag was removed without explanation. Non-notable candidate for office. Contains no sources. Fails WP:POLITICIAN since he never held office. Rusf10 (talk) 15:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 16:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncited article. As a BLP, uncited material must be deleted, which is all of the material in the article. Unscintillating (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not free advertisement for every candidate to put up their campaign brouchers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's one thing to make an article, but it's another to leave it unsourced. I don't agree with that.―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 06:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If he does win something eventually, it's a TOOSOON at minimum. For now, it's a failure of GNG, NPOL, etc. South Nashua (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Come on, it's a BLP with no sources at all. Bishonen | talk 02:11, 30 December 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. SNOW. conclusion is obvious. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gurteen[edit]

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

Self-authored article about non-notable person. PeterTheFourth (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI would have rather waited a week, but at this time I would have to say delete as there is zero evidence of any notability beyond what many armature (and none notable) athletes have. |What we have is some YouTube clips, and a list of minor race wins.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I appreciate that editors may disagree on the level if notability required for a Wikipedia article. However, the East Surrey League is a major adult athletics league containing 3 races over the season. This is a notable achievement in my opinion. Not all editors may agree with this, but to start an AFD on this article for lack of notability is rather far fetched. I will add more notable running information and reliable sources over the coming days. This AFD is inappropriate, espevially due to the very short duration after the article creation . Oscar248 (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth noting there is an accusation of a COI with this users that have not addressed.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant who the author of the article is. Wikipedia should not discriminate based on the person who edits a Wikipedia page. The article should be judged on its content and potential for improvement. It is very sad to see the active efforts of editors to delete Alex Gurteen without making a constructive contribution to the article. It is not too late to change this fact. Wikipedia editors should contribute to Alex Gurteen to improve the article as much as possible. Oscar248 (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my comment on the talk page I tried to find sources and could not.Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is absolutely fine, I will find some more over the coming days. Oscar248 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oscar248 has now admitted they are the subject of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The author's strange habit of referring to themselves in the third person aside, there is absolutely no indication of notability here, bordering on A7 territory. – Joe (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the refs, they don't support notability. It is a vanity page about a nn individual. There is an outstanding COI. Unexceptional runner (age grade of many others is better), not a youtube personality (just 1000 subscribers). Szzuk (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that I can find. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Alex Gurteen is an exceptional runner. This is evidenced by the 2015 reference of the East Surrey League race where Alex won the bronze medal. This AfD was put forward just 2 days after the page's creation. This seems to be a serious mistake considering the high level of notability of Mr Gurteen. I am trying to make the page more encyclopedic and I believe in the next week I can get the page up to a C class article. Oscar248 (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to yourself in the third person isn't going to help you make your case. Notability is established by significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not you claiming that you are notable. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I only talk in the third person and will continue to so I am not discriminated against based on my identity. I just want to be treated like all the other editors. There are more references that exist of me which I will find. Also, lets examine the word 'notable' more closely. The word means a 'subject which can be noted'. It does not mean I have been noted. My unique variety of notable achievements means my page should clearly be kept. Oscar248 (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I'm notable and I cannot lie, but the editors do deny, I'm exceptional and incredible when the people see this fact they get sprung Oscar248 (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the context of Wikipedia's polices on notability WP:N, and note it is notability,

notability

nəʊtəˈbɪlɪti/Submit

noun

the fact or quality of being notable.

a famous or important person.

not

notable

ˈnəʊtəb(ə)l/Submit

adjective

worthy of attention or notice; remarkable.

noun

a famous or important person.

You are none of these, if you were RS would have reported on you and shouted your praises.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This article clearly meets the notability guidelines as per WP:NATH. Oscar248 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !vote struck. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This does not fly. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability. MT Train^Discuss 07:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find any way this passes WP:ATH --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 11:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in any independent source. Not notable. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The C of E declares that The C of E feels that the article written about Alex Gurteen does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria as by no stretch of the imagination can one state earnestly that competing in a partial county athletics club fulfills WP:ATH nor does the sourcing meet GNG standards. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the declaration and feelings of C of E ... and the lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alex, you won a Christmas card competition and some athletics events. That's good, but to have a Wikipedia article it's necessary to meet the criteria for notability. Possibilities are WP:ARTIST and WP:ATHLETE. You don't meet any of the criteria for either. The final possibility, based on the online videos, is WP:ANYBIO. You don't meet any of the criteria for that either. Trying to change the criteria so that you do meet one of them is counterproductive. None of the votes here is a judgement on you as a person; it's just people applying the rules that exist. I hope you have a good Christmas. EddieHugh (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At last, someone less notable than me! Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and the achievement is far from enough to pass WP:ANYBIO. But based on the information available above and the age of the subject, I will advise the creator to read WP:AUTO and WP:YOUNG, as well as concentrate on his studies in school. Notability cannot be created. Ammarpad (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete We have the rule against autobiographies for good reason. There are lots of people who think their actions, like being a moderator on a fan-fiction forum, make them notable, but this is not at all the case. Wikipedia is built around coverage of people by other people, not self promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runner fails GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 23:46, 26 December 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) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANIME Impulse[edit]

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

Basically no reliable sources (nothing substantial from TV, Newspaper, Magazine). Current sources are all fansites or picture slideshows. Esw01407 (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only source I could find that was significant was from LA Weekly, a reliable source, but it isn't enough. What else I could find were press releases, event profiles, or passing mentions. It appears that the event is actually part of a larger event called Asian American Expo (which currently doesn't have an article, but could be notable as I could actually find more coverage for that event). I would have suggested a merge to an article about the parent event if it existed, but as there's none, it's a delete for me. No prejudice against a merge to an article about Asian American Expo if an article is written about it. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 15:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Similar to Narutolovehinata5, LA Weekly coverage is good but not enough and I could not find additional reliable coverage in citations or my own search. ~Kvng (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 30 December 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) 18:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Market Partners International[edit]

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

Unreferenced and fails NCORP. MT Train^Discuss 12:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It can probably also be speedied under G5 (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChildofMidnight/Archive). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, non-sourced. Bishonen | talk 02:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 30 December 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. Conditional on the article being cleaned up; I see that some edits to that effect took place after the start of the AfD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Carter (businessman)[edit]

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

The subject of this article has contacted Oversight requesting deletion, citing incorrect and outdated information plus recent defamatory vandalism. I have suppressed several potentially defamatory edits. Per WP:BLPDELETE we should try to honor these requests when we can. Katie^talk 11:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish to advocate to Keep the page. Amendments could be made to correct the currency of the information it contains. As the lead says, Carter has been listed as one of the most influential people in South Australia by the state's leading newspaper. I can also assist with the expansion and improvement of this article. --Danimations (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep? If we have the choice to keep it, now that it has been cleaned up(?), why delete it. If it gets repeatedly attacked again, then yes delete it to protect the LP. Aoziwe (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced but rephrasing is necessary as per WP:BIO @ Aoziwe,Danimations. Genome$100 (talk) 13:43, 28 December 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) 18:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Melcher[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman with a basically promotional article. My check of Google and Google News didn't bring up anything of note - fails GNG. As for the sources in the article:
1 is a deadlink now, but the fact that the website is "aboutmlm.co.uk" suggests that, when it did exist, it was probably something that promoted multi-level marketing and not so much a reliable source.
2 is an article in a horse magazine about a horse the subject sold. Of the eight sources, it is the only one that might feasibly have use in justifying an article, but it would be an article about the horse.
3 is from the subject's own website.
4 does not mention the subject. It mentions, briefly, a company where the article claims the subject used to work in an unspecified capacity.
5 is an Amazon page.
6 is Goodreads.
7 is a press release on a site called "PR Web".
8 is from that part of CNN's website that's not actually CNN, but where they pretty much just let anyone submit stuff. It is labelled "Not verified by CNN".
Egsan Bacon (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO, there's not much on him and his book outside of press releases.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability guidelines and independent coverage, plus the lack of NPOV content. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 16:20, 30 December 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eurovision Song Contest 2019[edit]

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

premature. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly salt for now. Very premature where even the forthcoming has not yet taken place. This will only harbor rumors and unsourced contents without any value and gives incentive for someone to start creating for 2020 and later years. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't need to be created right now. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Del. Wiki not crystalball. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP: NOTCRYSTAL. This article can be re-created when the 2019 contest has actually taken place.Vorbee (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can’t possibly make a page on a topic that hasn’t happened yet and hasn’t been talked about in a larger degree. ElonTesla (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete there's no content worth keeping. I expect this will be re-created in May once the host location is known. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No confirmed countries, no confirmed dates, no host country. Too early at this stage, the contest for the following year us usually created around May when the current ESC is in full swing, with provisional dates and host confirmed. -- AxG / ✉ 11:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect In my opinion, it would be best to redirect to the page for the Eurovision Song Contest because there is already speculation among countries on whether or not they'll participate in 2019, but not enough information to keep a full page up for. I'd say let's keep it up for now as a redirect and then, as more information starts to come in, then maybe it can become a page in it's own right. --PootisHeavy (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way too early to create this and at least wait until May comes around to get it ready. Matt294069 is coming 07:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The information about the 2019 contest will be relevant earlier than in half a year, because some country/-ies will confirm the participation in advance (not as a kind of rumours). It's not too long. Is there sense in deletion now in December? then it just will be surely restored/re-created in March or April. --Wolverène (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The page for the Eurovision Song Contest 2018 was originally a redirect that was created on 13 January 2017 (as seen here.)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:39, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Tarlov[edit]

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

I am not such an expert in the US internal politics, may be she is extremely notable, but of the two references with some claim of notability the Fox News one is dead (and in any case only expected to assert that she has at least once been invited to the Fox News), and LAT is about her father, not about her. Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what she would be notable for would not be as a politican, but as a journalist. However her contributions as a journalist lack indepdnet (as opposed to network advertising) coverage, and so do not lead to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I see no claim to notability as a journalist. Ifnord (talk) 14:16, 31 December 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) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Parsons[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the notability criteria described in WP:NCOLLATH I'm bringing this here because I'm no expert on American football and it's possible I'm mistaken. Deb (talk) 08:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 13:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parsons is the No. 7 overall prospect in the Class of 2018 according to ESPN.com and has committed to Penn State with plans to enroll early in January. He is the rare high school athlete who can satisfy WP:NHSPHSATH. The recruitment has been extensive and plagued by controversy and satisfies NHSPHSATH's requirement of "substantial and prolonged coverage" that "clearly" goes beyond WP:ROUTINE. Coverage at ESPN.com (the gold standard for significant national sports coverage) includes this, this, and this. Also this from Sports Illustrated, [4] from ABC News, and this from CBS Sports. Cbl62 (talk) 14:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, that's useful. I'm sure the article can be improved with addition of appropriate references. Deb (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cbl62. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paron's is heading to one of the largest football programs in Penn State. As others have talked about, Parsons recruitment was very extensive and received significant coverage. Next year he should start and will definitely receive playing time with Penn State. Pennsylvania2 (talk) (UTC)
Keep typically we do not keep articles about high school athletes... unless the generate so much freaking press that they slaughter WP:GNG, which this one does. Special case.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's sources. Meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete He does not meet the notability guidelines either for college athletes or for gridiron football players. The sports news tends to latch onto crystal ball predictions, but we do not do such in Wikipedia, we follow our guidelines, and Parsons does not currently meet such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:53, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and this can probably be SNOW closed. Lepricavark (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 30 December 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 Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 06:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Para-Commando Battalion[edit]

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

There are 2 references in this article but both make no mention of the 3rd Para commando battalion and talk about 1 Para battalion which already has an article here 1st Para-Commando Battalion. There are no news media reports or any book mention which verify the existence of this battalion. I might have missed out Bengali based sources here but having no English media coverage is surprising. At best, we can merge this into Para-Commando Brigade which itself makes mention of only 2 and not 3 Battalions. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Looks like a clear copyvio to me.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Georgia Army Vet: At the bottom of the page you linked it says "This article uses material from the Wikipedia page ...", so it looks like we had it first and they copied it from us. What would you think of merging instead? --Worldbruce (talk) 05:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Para-Commando Brigade (Bangladesh Army). There is no need for separate 1st Para-Commando Battalion, 2nd Commando Battalion (Bangladesh), 3rd Para-Commando Battalion. The parent article should mention battalions basing, formation, and actions when appropriate.Icewhiz (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to brigade per the other battalion article, if and when it is involved in fighting/operations on its own, then break out an article. Just doesn't have enough now, unless there are substantial Bengali sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:02, 24 December 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kabir Ahamed[edit]

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

There are two references in this article and both do not mention Kabir Ahamed. A google search with this name does not turn up any general in the Bangladesh Army. This leads to two scenarios, either the person does not exist or does not meet WP:GNG. Per Wikipedia rules any armed force officer of rank equal to or higher than Lt General automatically meets WP:GNG but I have failed to find any news media what so ever. Maybe there exists media in Bengali which I might have missed out but lack of any English media coverage is surprising. Adamgerber80 (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no claim to notability here. Deb (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Brigadier General" is a cast-iron claim to notability. The issue here is whether that claim can be substantiated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The two refs do not mention the subject. Googling "Kabir Ahamed Brigadier" gets no hits.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 16:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ Delete. Unsourced (the two refs do not mention the subject, I haven't been able to find English language refs) BLP. Note that if sources exists showing him as a brigadier he would be assumed notable per WP:SOLDIER - however this is not presently the case.Icewhiz (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By what criterion does this qualify for speedy delete? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BLP with no sources (the two refs do not mention him).Icewhiz (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a speedy deletion criterion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPPROD - which this article falls under at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC) But yes - I was wrong to say Speedy when this is a BLPPROD situation.Icewhiz (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Fails notability Jeff Quinn (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By what criterion does this qualify for speedy delete? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in bengali also. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mountainside Lutheran Church, Auckland[edit]

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

Non-notable congregation. Fails the notability guidelines for organizations. No independent coverage found. schetm (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional, obvious COI. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches did not turn up the type of significant, in-depth coverage necessary to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little independent coverage available. I removed several sections of the article as a direct copy of the church website. Brad v 14:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable organisation and slightly promotional. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 24 December 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 keep. Clearly BEFORE wasn't followed, Also as noted below it being poorly sourced or worded is not a valid reason for deletion, WP:SOFIXIT applies. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanglin Trust School[edit]

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

This article relies on heavily on primary sources for it's reference list and most non-primary sources are only used to establish stories related to the school not about the school itslef. It was also created by an account coming from the school itself and reads like an advertising material. It simply lacks notability to have an article about it as this point as searching using the suggested tools show a lack of secondary sources talking about the school itself or supporting it's notablityZubin12 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google Books search shows (unsurprisingly) that this 90+ year old British-style school in Singapore is notable. I agree that the current version of the article has problems. The solution is to edit the article to improve the referencing and eliminate the promotional language, rather than trying to delete an article about a notable topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You certainly didn't search well and I will advise you to slow down and learn the processes first for your own benefit. You nominated school article for deletion and later tag-bombed it with 12 templates. Shortly before you tag-bombed another school with 4 tags, please follow the suggestion on your talkpage.–Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not for deleting badly written articles. see [[[WP:AQU]] Egaoblai (talk) 20:59, 23 December 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 keep. Clearly BEFORE wasn't followed, Also as noted below it being poorly sourced or worded is not a valid reason for deletion, WP:SOFIXIT applies (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United World College of South East Asia[edit]

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

This article cites only primary sources from the school website for the bulk of it's content with the only secondary source being used to confirm that a certain pupil attended the schools. A search for sources reveal no secondary source about the school itself but are rather about the actions of those who went to the school. It simply isn't notable enough and I highly suspect that the bulk of this article was written by the organization itself as a self-promotional material Zubin12 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This school is covered in the "United+World+College+of+South+East+Asia"&dq="United+World+College+of+South+East+Asia"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFvL7xpp_YAhVM1GMKHVgjBJYQ6AEIVTAK International Encyclopedia of Education in 1989, and in other reliable sources. The solution to the identified problems with this article is to edit it with the goal of improving it in accordance with our policies and guidelines. It is not a good idea to try to delete an article about a notable topic instead of improving it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High Schools are given great leeway in notability and School that is featured in Encyclopedia of Education is certainly out of its peers and notable. I will advise the nominee again to follow the advise on his talkpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a source: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/united-world-college-halts-intake-of-singaporeans, and a reminder that AFD is not for deleting articles that are written badly WP:AQU, That stuff can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egaoblai (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 December 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 Replace with Ehrhart (surname). Sandstein 08:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrhart[edit]

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

Per WP:TWODAB. -- HindWiki^Connect 12:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which topic is primary?
I prefer to have two pages - a disambiguation and a surname page, but you may integrate them without discussion like Erhard.
There exists such given name.Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Ehrhart (surname) over the disambiguation and widen the scope to be about the name in both senses, that way Ehrhart Neubert can be listed along with those with the surname. That leaves Ehrhart polynomial, which can be mentioned in either the see also or a hatnote. Technically speaking, it looks to be a WP:PTM to me. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move Ehrhart (surname) over the disambiguation. I have added Ehrhart Neubert to the see also section, and have indicated in the line for the mathematician that he invented the Ehrhart polynomial. That takes care of all the potentially ambiguous links. Note that Ehrhart (surname) was recently moved from Ehrhart without discussion. That move can be reverted without discussion. bd2412 T 02:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alcione Sortica[edit]

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

Nonnotable poet. The article was created by user:Sortica, what a coincidence :-) who abandoned it since 2011. No serious independent sources. His bio was deleted from his native-language pt:WP last month. Staszek Lem (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepth coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poetry is not an easy subject to gain notability in. His article lists a lot of books, but I can't even find convincing evidence that they exist, let alone that they are published rather than self-published, let alone that they have enough reviews for WP:AUTHOR. And our article is no help; its references are entirely to Sortica's own web site. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:09, 29 December 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) Winged Blades^Godric 06:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Rice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wrote a couple notable songs, but the sources barely mention him at all -- all of the sources are just about "Cruise", not about him. Was unable to find any sources covering him in detail. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 12:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 13:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm surprised anyone who wrote one of the biggest country hits (not to mention overplayed hits) ever would even be considered for Afd. There certainly is more coverage on specifically him and his work. [5][6][7]--Oakshade (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Oakshade: The problem is that he was one of five writers, and hasn't really written anything else of note. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In fairness it should be pointed out his co-authorship is by being one of five people credited with contributing lyrics, with the melody and production being attributed to 2 other co-authors. Still, a best selling single is notable. However I think the AfD nomination has merit in that his contribution to this one song seems to be his sole notable accomplishment and, as pointed out, are not about him. The new references provided with the keep vote are kinda "meh" as far as establishing independent notability, being somewhat small time sources. But I'm refraining from i-voting until I can do more research if I find the time. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cruise (song). ~~Two interviews (why link to one twice?) doesn't satisfy GNG at all.~~ One interview, a brief album review and one long article aren't enough for GNG. Being one of five co-writers of a hit song apparently isn't all that notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, those are two different articles by the same source. The third source is even more in-depth. The "interviews" include non-interview coverage, but still interviews are being the subject of a secondary source and counts towards notability. --Oakshade (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: He wrote a couple other minor songs, so a redirect to "Cruise" might be misleading. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Cruise" was by far the most successful song he had a hand in. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forty Five Hundred Times[edit]

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

A popular song among Status Quo fans perhaps but that alone is not suitable for inclusion. There simply is no reliable coverage to help pass GNG and the fact it was never released as a single means the likelihood it ever charted it next to zero. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from scarce reliable coverage, it doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC to me and hence delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Yeah, on second thought, merge and redirect to Hello! (album). Doctorhawkes (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hello! (album). I'm a big fan of 1970s Quo (blush) and this is a great song... but it's very unlikely that there exists enough coverage to make a stand-alone article for this. That said, it's one of the group's best-known album tracks, and I can see people using it as a search term, so a redirect to its parent album seems the best solution to me. Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 No need to blush, I met John Coghlan when his Quo covers band played a local pub, and before the gig started, he said "if you think we're going to do stuff like "Marguerita Time" .... hahahaha, we're going to do the real Quo!" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: no coincidence he left the band just before they recorded that song and the Back to Back album... ;-) Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be telling me you like Quo's version of "Roadhouse Blues" more than the original next (like me)! Anyway, has the 5x expansion of the article changed your mind about simply merging? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:11, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changing my vote to keep thanks to Ritchie333's additions... I still think a couple of the references are dubious, but there are enough reliable ones (AllMusic, Record Collector, the two from TeamRock.com which are almost certainly articles reproduced from Classic Rock), and as noted in the article, it's appeared on both the classic Quo live albums, indicating that it was a popular song to play in concert. Thank you Ritchie for proving me wrong that there weren't any sources out there about this song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- as per Richard3120. Don't know the song, but if its as well-known by fans as he claims, I can't see the harm in linking it back to the album.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with either article on Status Quo or with Hello! (album). This article points out that the song has never been released as a single, and says it is one of Status Quo's longest songs. If this is so, this information could more adequately be conveyed in a longer article than in a stand alone article. Vorbee (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hello! (album). Excelse (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its respective album. Not enough sourcing to meet the GNG, but its a plausible search term, and "redirects are cheap". Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Jeez, d'y'all think Quo did "Rockin' All Over the World" and nothing else? The song has appeared on two studio albums with different line-ups, on several live albums and compilations, name-checked by reliable sources as one of Francis Rossi and Rick Parfitt's favourite Quo songs (and who am I to argue?) and is a kick-ass live track (alright, I like it, but I'm not directly using that as a reason to keep). I have expanded the article with numerous sources; take another look. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think "... that Forty Five Hundred Times was Rick Parfitt's favourite guitar moment in Status Quo" would be a good DYK for 24 December - the first anniversary of his death. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: surely your argument should not be I like it but I like it, I like it, I like it, I like it, li-li-li-like it... Richard3120 (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known song. Article well sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have notability outside of merely the album from which it came. There are enough RS provided for a standalone article.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some of the sourcing is crap (H2G2 should probably be blacklisted as a source), but there's non-trivial coverage that's about the song and not just the album it is on. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been improved - hopefully previous participants will return and re-evaluate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marginal, perhaps, but it comes down to keep or merge for me, and there's too much to be reasonably merged elsewhere. --Michig (talk) 07:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HEY. Few songs can have the sources of this article, also there are print sources, we have to assume good faith. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relisting was probably a tad bit unnecessary. As the nom, I am fine with a keep; hardly any of the sources are actually about the song but it is more convincing than a song that is only recognized for charting for a week and nothing more.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:21, 23 December 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. While not expressly a part of this close (as it wasn't clear to me it reached consensus) I did make a normal editing choice to redirect the name to Echo Co as some mentioned below. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Myron N. Ranney[edit]

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

Myron N. Ranney was an NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (staff sergeant) and lack of high-level awards (possible Purple Heart) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER; he was involved in the revolt by the NCOs of E Company against the command of Herbert Sobel. His post-war career in journalism and public relations earned him no significant coverage. He is the apparent originator of the quote about not being a hero but having served in a company of heroes (see article). His name does appear in lists of more than one issue of Proceedings: Annual Convention American Newspaper Guild (snippet views at Google Books), possibly as an attendee. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect name to E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Like many of the others from "Band of Brothers", not notable for stand alone article. Kierzek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 19:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to E Coy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find this to be a borderline case. On newspapers.com, I find a number of passing mentions of Ranney, from which the article could be expanded. Before the war, he was a noted athlete, boxing as a light heavyweight and gaining a letter as a Freshman (in football?) at UND. He happens to be the subject of a photo in the National Geographic in the March 1945 edition (p338). After the war, from at least 1947 and until 1949 he was an editor and editorial writer for the Redfield Press in SD. In November of 1949 he moved to the Sioux City Journal-Tribune (now just the Sioux City Journal). Newspapers.com and newspaperarchive.com do not have issues of that paper between 1931 and 1963 (nor do I find archives of any other Sioux City papers). The Sioux City Journal is a major regional paper, and a detailed obit, especially in a paper like that, would likely persuade me that Ranney would be a suitable subject for the encyclopedia. However, I only find one article about Ranney, a short note about his move from the Redfield Press to the Journal-Tribune in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader. As is, I am neutral, but would support recreation if more information were found. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:43, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Possible sources not yet commented on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 01:02, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Getting a letter for sports from any college is not at all a sign of notability. Wikipedia is not news, or an aggregate of human insterest stories, and not everyone who makes periodic minor mentions in the paper is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails WP:SOLDIER and the lack of sources does not satisfy WP:BIO. Ifnord (talk) 14:21, 31 December 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) >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaylin Andres[edit]

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

Delete: tragic untimely death from cancer does not automatically create NOTABILITY. This is not the appropriate venue to ensure her posterity. Quis separabit? 00:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A tragic untimely death from cancer may not create notability, but three independent secondary sources does ([8][9][10]) -Indy beetle (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete those are fairly poor sources, especially Huffpost. Vice is not great either. Looking around, I find the quality of sources to be poor overall.104.163.153.162 (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I improved the article and added more sources from Huffpost, SF Weekly and Sacramento Bee. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. Significant coverage from SF Weekly and the The Sacramento Bee, plus she had a show on MTV for a year. Blackguard 07:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mild case of plagiarism, with insufficiently paraphrased text being shared among the sources, including jennsingergallery.com, healing-power-of-art.org, and a youtube description. Either one person wrote all of it and shared it across the spectrum, or three people came up with almost identical phrasing on three separate websites. Nothing like share and share alike I suppose. How can WP:V be confirmed if you're not sure where a source originated. It's seems like a case of the chicken and the egg: When almost the exact phrasing turns up on the gallery's website, it makes you wonder which text came first — the gallery, or Wikipedia? Which one is the source? Spintendo ᔦᔭ 10:59, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- She did not have a MTV show for a year, she was featured in one episode of that show. A death from cancer although tragic does not create notability. Human interest stories should not be used to establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source says 12 episodes. MTV says one year. Blackguard 21:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that she was only featured in one episode of that show. The sources do not make it clear. According to World of Jenks, the show is about a guy who moves in with a different person every week.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The MTV link I provided above explains the second season. Blackguard 03:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't make it clear if she is just featured in one or two episodes or throughout the season.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- tragic story but, as the person above me points out, human interest stories can't be used to establish notability. Spintendo also makes a good point about the too-close paraphrasing. Finally, huffington post is not a suitably reliable source to base so much of an article on. Reyk _YO! 15:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple reliable sources. If Huffpo is unreliable work to get it blacklisted and all the links removed. It has been done for other sources, once deemed unreliable. There are 600,000 cancer deaths per year in the USA and only one or two are notable. --RAN (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - - Barely scrapes through GNG. Winged Blades^Godric 06:25, 31 December 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 (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Focus concerts[edit]

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

I was somewhat impressed by the list but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and this looks like WP:LISTCRUFT. This article is sourced to the band's website and bootleg live albums, both nothing I would consider independent of the group. The article creator has indicated they will re-create this article when it is deleted so I suggest either salting this article title or having a talk with said editor before they get themselves blocked. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fancruft / listcruft of zero encyclopedic relevance and for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Use 5 pounds of salt. The article uses primary sources which counts as zero towards notability. Otr500 (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE WP:FANCRUFT Ajf773 (talk) 09:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic and and mere transferring of list from their website to Wikipedia. Basically SPAMLIST and no single secondary coverage. I also support salting per the above diff by the nom, since it very likely be recreated. –Ammarpad (talk) 13:25, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another uncyclopaedic list of dates poorly formatted with a lack of credible sources. LowSelfEstidle (talk) 12:41, 24 December 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 because it was already deleted by Jimfbleak as G11/A7. (NAC) –Ammarpad (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In And Out Of Focus Records[edit]

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

The PROD tag was removed without explanation; the removal of two unreliable sources doesn't magically clear up issues. My PROD rationale still applies here: total lack of secondary sources and no indication of independent notability. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:29, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; a promotional directory listing on an in-house label. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 23 December 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 (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ensemble Therapeutics[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG, now defunct Seraphim System ^(talk) 03:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:43, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- according to the article they attempted to bring drugs to the market, which I take as they never did, so therefore a failure and not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to David R. Liu. The article as it stands is uninformative, but I can imagine possible historical significance at some future date. Deb (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per GNG, and not likely to become more notable as it is defunct. Natureium (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with OP, fails notability criteria, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This a shitpile of industrial waste dumped into Wikipedia. There is one OK source and I have already added content based on it to David R. Liu. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above but please keep/put back the appropriate company-related categories on the resulting redirect page Doprendek (talk) 17:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avem Capital[edit]

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

Fails CORPDEPTH, not having any significant coverage about the company that is independent. That is obviously reflected in the article itself, having as much about the founders as the company. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom as the article and sources drifts away from the subject. Otr500 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable hedge fund; nothing stands out about this one and no SIGCOV to support notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with OP and others above, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable company; promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 21:55, 27 December 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 to delete. bd2412 T 18:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floppyfw[edit]

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

This articles fails WP:N WP:V & WP:RS and has been flagged since 2008 with no addition information. This page has been recommended to be merged, but content here does not warrant a merge with another page, but only in lists Hagennos (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom for failing WP:N WP:V & WP:RS. Plus, the article is written like an advertisement. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 05:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't accept that snow close of this article is at all appropriate, nor was the NOM's original speedy delete idea, which was declined. ((It's akin to stamping on insects because you don't know what they are, and can't be bothered to find out) Did no-one read WP:BEFORE, or act on it? Originally, this began as just a comment, but I've added two fairly detailed secondary review articles that shows it meets WP:V and WP:RS, plus a more detailed independent paper which comes out in its favour. And it has mentions in quite a few "What links here?" pages, though often through incorporation in templates. So rushing to delete is not appropriate. The question is: does it meet WP:NSOFTWARE? Having done the investigation into a field I admittedly know absolutely nothing about, I think it does. viz. "It has been recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources. However, the mere existence of reviews does not mean the app is notable. Reviews must be significant, from a reliable source, or assert notability." I think it just gets there. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- A Firewall on a floppy disk? Even in the year 2000 that would have sounded like a bad idea (maybe in 1995 it would have been okay) But seriously the sources for this are really poor.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a firewall on a floppy disk should be such a bad idea. The only difference between that and any other delivery method is the limitation to 1.44 MB, and that is far more than is needed to provide the necessary functionality for a secure firewall. The only thing that has happened since 1995 is the increase in bloat, not any actual requirement for increased program size. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The references section clearly establishes significant coverage of the software across a variety of sources, and I think most of the references are from acceptable sources. Also, I know Rusf10 was joking, but just in case anyone is in any doubt - there is no policy that says Wikipedia has to only cover "good" software, whatever that might mean.--greenrd (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is promotional content. Jeff Quinn (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per the other keep reasons but also when did a lack of additional information being added become a suitable reason for deletion? EvilxFish (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Due to improvements made to the article since the start of this AFD. It would be a stretch to call this software notable since coverage is limited to techie websites, however the sources given are enough to verify the information. Mattg82 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 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 10:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nezha (upcoming film)[edit]

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

Fails: WP:NFF: "films produced in the past which were either not completed or not distributed should not have their own articles, unless their failure was notable per the guidelines". Principal filmography ended in May 2016 but in August 2016 reports surfaced that the film studio owed its cast and crew (including the director) ¥9.18 million in arrears: (link in Chinese). Nothing has been reported since, so we may assume the film will never see the light of day. If it does, the article can be re-created at that point. BTW: This article was created by a banned sockpuppet. Timmyshin (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 18:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't meet WP:NFF, WP:GNG, WP:CRYSTAL. Grapefruit17 (talk) 14:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms given by Grapefruit17. Some movies enter production but were never released. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:32, 24 December 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 10:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Journey to the West (Zhang Jinlai version)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Journey to the West (Zhang Jinlai version) (4th nomination)

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

Please refer to the last AFD. It's been 2 years and 4 months since the last AFD and there's been no updates on this film, just like I predicted. In short: the film does not exist, never did, never will. Timmyshin (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF unless someone can show that this has actually begun filming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A 2015 wishful article? If Wikipedia was a crystal ball we could get a production date (I couldn't find one), which it isn't, so why continue wishing? Otr500 (talk) 03:34, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't verify that the film has ever entered production or is likely to be released. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon for the article too be spun out. I agree that it should be deleted. Some movies entered production but were never released. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 05:28, 24 December 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 09:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Blumer (blockchain)[edit]

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

The company block.one may be notable, but the founder is not - he fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO due to the lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Rentier (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blumer in no way meets notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: complete failure of WP:ANYBIO. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:41, 29 December 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. Sandstein 09:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Naila Nayem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No notable film credit. Not even a well known model in Bangladesh. Her popularity has fallen as an actor and model since the first nomination. The film Run Out is non notable. She was not in lead role there. Mar11 (talk) 00:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 01:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the last vote in the last discussion was from a Bangledeshi editor who knew what was up and should have been headed. As he pointed out, Nayem did not act in a film, she had a role as a dancer in one song in a film. At present her career just does not pass the notability requrements for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- She is well known in Bangladesh and that is backed up reliable sources. A quick search on google news will show articles about her. Notability is not temporary, once a subject is notable, it should be assumed that they are notable for good regardless of the drop in interest from the media. In her case I dont believe there is a decline. Run out is not her only claim to notability, she has acted in commercials, music videos, and has done ramp shows. There was a Bangladeshi editor voting for delete, and there is now one voting for keep. Some sources Bangladesh's famous model Naila Nayem's ex-husband featured in latest ISIS video?, she is also notable for a commercial that was censored, Sabbir and Naila Nayem's ad gone off air, Naila Nayem: the glamorous nurse.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vinegarymass911. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons. First the nomination was faulty, because it was made in contradiction to notability guideline. "Her popularity has fallen" so let's delete it (from nom statement). This is against WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Her notability was asserted when the article was created and tested 3 times later and proven. Popularity is ephemeral, many people were popular in the last decade but now you would thought they're dead while they still live but we don't delete the articles. Also

Find sources with her native name in the language she'll likely be reported more 'নায়লা নাঈম'. Don't base WP:GOOGLEHITS and notability upon searching English name, very likely filtered by country level domain
[11], [12], [13], and [14] All have coverage about her and are independent of each other.. These and the sources present in the article will establish meeting WP:GNG and as have been shown before even without some. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as per nom. And from my argument from previous nomination, "She appeared in item song in a movie and a single drama. And thats it. She is popular through her facebook page although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that she does not pass the notability for entertainers criteria. She did not acted any movie or drama rather dance item song in a movie (Run Out (film)) and a single drama [15]." -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 07:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. Your idée fixe to get her article deleted is very strange and below timeline may shed light on something. First: Articles are not deleted because we don't like them. Peruse the following timeline. In the 3rd AfD and this one you claimed ."She is popular through her facebook page although she does not hold the highest fan base in facebook from Bangladesh, for that I don't think she passes the notability for entertainers criteria.". This statement of yours shows clear misunderstanding of criteria for notability and notability concept itself. It was never and will never be on the size of fandom or social media popularity. If you don't understand what I mean, that's another problem.
2. Second. The article exists on Bengali Wikipedia where you're sysop but I wonder why you left article of non notable person on Wikipedia where you hold advanced right.
3. You wrote "As a editor from Bangladesh, I can vouch for the Deletion of the article." Do you think this is policy-based or guideline-based argument and should be used in closing discussion?
4. You tried getting it deleted closed as keep. Less than one month later you tried again, closed as speedy keep. Then someone did the third nomination where you claim she is ""not notable since he doesn't have the highest fan base". Also closed as keep. Please during these nominations why you didn't speedily deleted the article on bn.wiki as non notable or at least nominated it for deletion? Or have you tried that also?! This is very, very odd. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments @brahim Husain Mera. Here is the unsuccessful AfD on Bengali Wikipedia that you started and closed as keep. Not satisfied you continued arguing on talkpage where unfortunately the consensus didn't favor you. You also tried getting it deleted here unsuccessfully 3 times. This idée fixe to get this particular article deleted speaks volume. –Ammarpad (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to satisfy GNG. Here's another secondary source about her [16]. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above - Judging by the reliable sources she seems to just about meet GNG - Not a shining example however meets GNG nonetheless. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:15, 27 December 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.