< 28 December	30 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) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Alma (TV Host)[edit]

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

Creator bypassed AfC nomination process after numerous failed attempts to prove notability. This article is also to circumvent the salting of Blake Alma, a 2013 attempt at creation. Wylie pedia 23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Wylie pedia 23:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Too many blogs cited in the article, which are not reliable secondary sources. The hunting magazine article is encouraging, but doesn't quite push it over the line of notability for me. Seems WP:TOOSOON. Avoiding the normal Wikipedia processes is also disconcerting. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – I have come to the same conclusion as Indy beetle: a classic case of TOOSOON. Blogs are mixed with RS in the article and notability is not quite established. "Blake+Alma"&oq="Blake+Alma"&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.3...24752.32844.0.33826.16.14.2.0.0.0.289.3227.2-14.14.0....0...1c.1j4.64.mobile-gws-serp..3.0.0....0.l6FOxw7gcT8 finds a lot of coverage, but it is mainly concentrated in OutdoorHub (is it reliable?) and even then only across a short time period. Due to him being active in many different areas redirecting would be biased towards one aspect of his career. I would post a more detailed rationale and investigate his noteworthiness further if I were off mobile. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reasons why I declined at AFC.T v x1 16:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a teenager with a PR campaign. I don't see any references that establish notability, or any claim that WP:NAUTHOR or WP:ENT are met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merged to OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website. bd2412 T 02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexuality[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Term is WP:NEO and is mainly used in reference to dating websites like OkCupid, as all of the sources in the article show. Although a few scholars have mentioned the term to document that it exists, it is not a term that academics use. It is not a sexual orientation. The current entry is also a WP:Dictionary entry. This topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes WP:GNG easily, especially with coverage in the Toronto Star ([1]) and The New York Times ([2]) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indy beetle, what is there to state about the term beside the fact that it is a category used on some dating websites? WP:Stubs are not ideal. Per WP:Neo, neither are articles on neologisms. And per WP:No page, not every article needs its own Wikipedia page. This one certainly does not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging also exists, which is why I noted that this topic can be easily covered in the Online dating service article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to OkCupid, I'm not aware it has any widespread use outside of one website.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not actually exist, it's just a made-up thing by a dating website. The source coverage that is present discusses it only within the context of it's creator, a line or two at Okcupid is enough. TheValeyard (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least.Knox490 (talk) 06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a WP:DICTDEF here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just seen [3] (via Hacker News) about this. I have no prejudice against re-creation with better sources in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DictDef. Or Non Notable Neologism. Pick one. Carrite (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG - all WP:NEO says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in Intelligence (journal) [4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: See Talk:Sapiosexuality for Czar's take on the concept's notability and the article's possibility for expansion. Malinaccier (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of this book--mreow. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [[5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [[6]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Rosenthal (artist)[edit]

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

Does not appear notable with significant coverage in independent sources either as an actor (WP:ACTOR) or an artist (WP:NARTIST) Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass our inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in independent sources. Just another PR piece on a non-notable individual. Kb.au (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not supported by reliable sources.104.163.153.162 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NACTOR, NARTIST, GNG, etc. South Nashua (talk) 02:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. Current article state seems to violate WP:PROMO too. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Blakk[edit]

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

Can't see the claim to notability here, and no significant coverage in independent sources. She played minor roles in a number of stage works and performed with live shows for Disney. I can't find independent corroboration of playing the role Marianne in Shout!, she certainly didn't originate the role. She does not appear to be credited on the Sardi single. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete her roles as an actress are just not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor roles only and only 1 gnews hit. LibStar (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage in major media sources, nor any coverage of significance in other sources. The SMH ref inline doesn't even mention the subject. Does not pass GNG or WP:NACTOR. WP:NOTPROMO. Kb.au (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actress fails the WP:GNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. bd2412 T 03:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prajesh Sen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:FILMMAKER. Source searches are only providing passing mentions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 21:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – From this Google News search I found some significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject with no false positives. My results are shown below:

Manorama's Travails of an implicated Scientist: Review of the autobiography of Nambi Narayana – A reliable source, but not quite significant coverage though, but I will still count it barely towards notability.
The Times of India's Mollywood renews its love for biopics, wherein there is 2 and a half paragraphs about Sen. This is the main source towards establishing inclusion.
Other sources exist as well, which together push him over towards notability.

Indian editors can help to find sources but even the sources that I have posted are in my opinion enough. I was considering erring on the side of caution as this is a biography of a living person and he may meet TOOSOON but there are probably sources out there that are hard to access and often need custom searches or perhaps there is more stuff in print only (unlikely in my opinion). I'm unsure why all the sources I have found are post-September; maybe it's a problem with my search. I don't think the sources are quite passing mention in response to NA1000's statement.

In conclusion, yes he fails WP:DIRECTOR but he does pass the general notability guideline and thus whether he passes WP:CREATIVE or not is moot. Also, he may pass WP:JOURNALIST (same as CREATIVE, DIRECTOR, and FILMMAKER) under criterion 4c: The person's work (or works) has [sic] won significant critical attention due to his numerous awards for journalism (let's hope they're not made up). J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 22:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON; the coverage is in passing, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. I don't think that the sources above are sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Weak Keep per J947. The coverage is weak and directing a single film doesn't meet any SNG, but I believe GNG is met. I have no ability to tell if there are Malayalam articles. My biggest concern is the title; is it "G Prajesh Sen" or "Prajesh Sen" or "Prajeshsen"? power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be G Prajesh Sen from my searches, and it definitely confused me but I think they are the same. Also, his role as a journalist seems to be the main source of coverage. J 947 ^{^{(contribs · mail)}} 22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Outer Hebrides#Transport which I've already done[7] (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bus na Comhairle[edit]

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

Non notable bus company, Fails GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Only source is a bus schedule for the company itself. Fails CORPDEPTH. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 22:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Merge and redirect to Outer Hebrides#Transport, where it can be covered in appropriate context and (brief) detail. Fails WP:GNG for an individual article, but is entirely proper to be mentioned there (where it technically is, but a bit of detail on 'which islands' would not be amiss), and redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Outer_Hebrides#Transport where the subject is already mentioned. There's nothing to merge as the article does not list any sources; a redirect would be a cleaner outcome. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Outer Hebrides#Transport, which ought to mention who owns the company. XOR'easter (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect as suggested. I do not think there is enough notability for a separate article, but the transport section of the Outer Hebrides article would seem an obvious place to have this kind of information. Dunarc (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dilts[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still no reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, largely promotional and supported only by self-published fringe sources. Famous _dog (c) 19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a classic promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation, preferably as a redirect The article itself uses future tense, and after reading [8], suggests that the article's future tense is advancing a split from the founding ideas of NLP. For reference, one of the two primary sources is a biography with extensive detail, [9], and the second is written by the topic.
As for the topic itself, reading the article on NLP shows analysis that reaches into concepts of religion, just as the second primary source lists "Spiritual" as an additional layer of the "NeuroLogical levels". The NLP article's mention of New Age quasi-religion fits in with the topic's association with University of California at Santa Cruz. The NLP article has 11 cites to the topic at hand. I see that the topic at hand has been translated into Russian, German, French, and Italian. I find in Google searches that the topic has a patent regarding biofeedback, and the primary-source biography couples his work with the biofeedback game "Wild Divine", a topic with Ghits in Google Scholar. Certainly Wikipedia notable as per the lede and nutshell; although if we are having trouble getting a standalone article on the topic, space could be created at NLP to identify him in a section called History. Unscintillating (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a CV with a few promotional sentences tacked on. No claim of meeting WP:NAUTHOR. No independent references, and I was unable to find any. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on whether a redirect to Neuro-linguistic programming is appropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Unscintillating: for adding those previous AfDs (which were thrown out on largely procedural grounds). Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 15:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. Redirection is the appropriate action per WP:ATD-R and the absence of BLP concerns. A Train^talk 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Lee Kempner[edit]

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

Clearly does not meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't pass WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivia, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER; notability is not inherited from the fact a segment of an anthology mentioned his writing home. A man who served his country and sadly did not come home, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SOLDIER and his letter does not particularly stand out compared to others written by soldiers.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines for both writers and soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam - His story has been inspirational to many (for instance, here is a long article about Kemper from the Galveston Daily News in 1998 [10]), but most newspapers.com and google books results are about his letter. The letter is famous because it was collected in that anthology. The anthology receives a good deal of coverage and that article could be expanded (or an article on the book of the same title created), and discussion of why the letters were important added which could mention Kempner, particularly his characterization of America as a "a country of thorns and cuts", etc. So while the article doesn't currently mention Kempner, most people searching for Kempner will be doing so because of the anthology, and a redirect there seems appropriate. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If redirected, then to an article about the book, which contains three of his letters. The Kempner article currently links to the movie; that should be fixed if a book article is created.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:SOLDIER fail, WP:NOTMEMORIAL.Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cheung Yiu-sing[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria, all the press is about his death, so WP:BIO1E applies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Heroic death, but no long-term significance. If necessary this can be merged/redirected into Amoycan Industrial Centre fire, which already contains 3 sentences about him. Timmyshin (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per WP:ONEEVENT, not notable for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dieing in an industrial fire is not enough to create notability. Wikipedia is not a place to memorialize people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tad Riley[edit]

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

While an interesting footnote to the cold war, simply not enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable for stand alone article. Trivia and Wikipedia is WP:Not News. Kierzek (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no need to redirect.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't find any additional sources and this seems to be a minor 1E. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:SOLDIER fail mentioned in the context of flying a few recon missions.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails our notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the Gng. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 02:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 19:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce M. Macfarlane[edit]

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

Minor tv personality who doesn't meet WP:GNG, and certainly doesn't meet either WP:ENTERTAINER, WP:NSOLDIER, or WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable mayor and TV anchorman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google. [This page provides something he did as mayor. WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada. WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters. His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper. It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic. Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist. Bearcat (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources? If so, what did you find? Unscintillating (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the article kept, then you're the one whose job it is to find enough sources to get it kept. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:NSPORT is met, no consensus about WP:SOLDIER. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Overton[edit]

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

Uncited. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet out notability guidelines for soliders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Easilly meets V, NPOV, NOR, N, NSPORTS. I don't like to editorialize at AfD, but Overton is one of the greatest college middle-distance runners of all time and I'm unhappy to see this nomination and the current state of the discussion. I'll work on adding sources, but in the meantime, here is a short article about Overton in the Yale Alumni Magazine: [11]. Here is an article about his recent induction in the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame [12]. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add. He clearly meets WP:NSPORTS by being a multiple world record holder. He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion. All that before we get to the war hero stuff. Trackinfo (talk) 19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Seems he passes GNG and WP:NSPORT - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities).Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nearly passes WP:SOLDIER, as he was awarded two second-tier gallantry awards. But I believe he does pass WP:NSPORTS. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NSPORTS as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails [SUPNG], delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets the presumption at WP:NTRACK based on points 5 & 7, while the amount of coverage in the article appears to meet the GNG, IMO. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep qualifies as NSPORTS
Keep as qualifies as NSPORTS Wpgbrown (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:SOLDIER #1 apart from anything else, with the Navy Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. Not sure why editors seem to be saying he doesn't. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Koláček[edit]

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

Per source searches and citation checks, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACADEMIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is essentially unsourced (using only the subject's own web site as a reference) and makes no claim that would pass WP:MUSICIAN. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS is a dealbreaker. Agricola44 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte does not meet the inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he seems to be known as a skilled arranger and music teacher, but I can't find any reliable sources suggesting he meets our inclusion criteria. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jdcooper (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Katie^talk 20:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service North Little Rock, Arkansas[edit]

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

Unnecessary spin-out articles of List of National Weather Service Weather Forecast Offices. Provides little additional information. The offices on their own fails WP:ORG, an office does not inherit notability from the National Weather Service. Also sourcing in these articles are either limited or non-existent. Some articles likely contain WP:OR. Rusf10 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Strip[edit]

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

The phrase "frontier strip" appears to have been invented solely for this Wikipedia namespace. I can not find any historical or scholarly examples of the phrase "frontier strip" being used in relation to the United States, and as far as I can tell the phrase "frontier strip" does not appear in any of the article's listed references . The small number of Google search hits (regular search, books and scholar) for "frontier strip" appear to be traceable back to this article, with the exception of some references that are clearly about other countries.

In sum, this page's definition of a "frontier strip" is not a recognized grouping of U.S. states. In addition, the general topic is already thoroughly reviewed by American frontier and other state and regional pages. Thomas H. White (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:46, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree--it should be deleted. I cannot find any usage. Rjensen (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something, I'm not sure what, or Merge into American Frontier. Leave no redirect from "Frontier Strip". Looking at newspapers.com, frontier strip seems to be a term occasionally used to describe regions near frontlines of battles, but I agree it doesn't work here. Also, the "Last American Frontier", which is used to in this article, generally refers to Alaska and not this region.Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Rename / Merge~~ - this is a difficult one - as this article dates back to 2005 making Wikipedia->source contamination quite an issue. I have found some sources referring to these as "Frontier Strip". Post 2005: [13] [14] [15] [16]. But I am unable to find older sources using this name for Texas to Dakota.Icewhiz (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Modified to delete as it seems most the contents are copy pssted from other wiki articles.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename- Unfortunately this article has been around for a long time and people have put a lot of work into it. However, it seems to be a made-up name for geographic region. I think the easier thing to do would be to move the page to American Great Plains. Alternately candidates for merges would be American Frontier (as above) or Great Plains (although this article includes Canada too, which is why I prefer the rename).--Rusf10 (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming to History of the Great Plains or History of the American Great Plains (I think the former is better right now, since American Great Plains redirects to Great Plains). This would be a minor repurposing, with frontier strip replaced with great plains in the text and the image perhaps replaced with File:Map of the Great Plains.png. The description section doesn't really have anything not in Great Plains, and this page would, I think, be better kept separate but referred to in the history section of that article. Smmurphy^(Talk)

While most of the article deals with history, some things would not fit into an article titled "History of". That's why I'd prefer renaming to "American Great Plains" with a hatnote at the top going to the existing "Great Plains" article.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but American Great Plains already exists (is a redirect to Great Plains). As I meant to say, the non-history stuff from this article could be merged into that article, except it is already there, so it can just be trimmed in this article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each section into the history section of a relevant state or region article such as American West or Great Plains. See Below The edit history of this article is eye-opening: The original is nothing more than a list of states accompanied by an unsourced and speculative explanation. A later revision attempts to attribute it to the US Census, but this is also fails to support the grouping of the states. Everything else seems to be a mishmash of events that occurred within or around this group of states, but there is still nothing that ties it together as a cohesive region. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus yet on a possible renaming or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 03:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

merge a nice piece of OR, which of course has no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is consensus for merging, but not on a target. So the question is: where do you think it should be merged? ansh 666 05:49, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the historical information appears to have been copy-and-pasted from other Wiki articles by User:Reddi in June and July 2009 without any references or attribution. I copied the article into my userspace at User:Dlthewave/Frontier Strip Draft and removed everything that I could verify as copied, just to see what's left. If deleted, I don't think we would lose very much that isn't covered elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is a historical concept; Glad i caught this so get the wikimarkup before any deletion; Maybe move it somewhere else; Sad, not the WP of yesterday ... just another reason not to contribute much anymore; Enjoy --J. D. Redding 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, most of your contributions will be retained in the articles from which they were copied. –dlthewave ☎ 16:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, but destroy the history; Cheers --J. D. Redding 20:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Editors are reminded that if content is merged a redirect must remain for attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is OR, which nobody seems to dispute, then Wikipedia has no place for it, per WP:NOR. Sandstein 10:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. --J04n(talk page) 14:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether merging or deletion is preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Over half of this article was copy-and-pasted from other Wikipedia articles, so there would be no point in merging. Most of the remainder is either not suitable for merging (climate and political data) or already covered elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is where I land too. Looks like violates WP:OR and that seems to be consensus. I would love to be wrong.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After someone pointing out that this is just a copy and paste job, I have to change to delete. There's nothing worth saving here.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:14, 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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I ma nominate in a year or two when opinion about promotionalism becomes more rational DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taziki's Mediterranean Café[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy WP:NOT. The previous discussion argued on the grounds of notability, but I do not see why. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable national chain, and unique in its own right. Article cites multiple secondary and third party RS using inline citations. If this article doesn't pass as keep, then we might as well AfD Panera Bread, Dôme (coffeehouse), McCafé, and all the others listed in Category:Bakery cafés, and that's just one of many restaurant/cafe categories. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The article is written based upon what reliable sources state about it. Positive press coverage does not automatically equate to advertising. If the company received significant coverage in the form of negative press for some matter, I would have included that as well. The article does not have a promotional tone and does not encourage readers to do business with the company. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I !voted keep at the previous AfD, and my rationale still stands. (I will add more reason later) –Ammarpad (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass GNG. PROMO/SPAM doesn't apply to RS-worthy refs, that appears to be the case here after a quick peek. South Nashua (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable regional chain with over 80 restaurants. Plenty of decent press coverage. REAL certification section could use cleaning up but that is hardly a reason to delete the article.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:46, 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 speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie B's Hot Chicken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable. FloridaArmy (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Comfortably passes WP:AUD and WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. For starters, the USA Today article is certainly not "local coverage", and is not a listing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per my !vote on the previous nomination. Non-notable as a chain, but main location notable as a significant tourist attraction in Nashville. I've never been there, I don't like "hot chicken", but I recognized the topic from reading somewhere. In my estimation it is a topic likely to be looked up by readers looking for encyclopedic information. Meets GNG comfortably. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multi-state restaurant with abundant national WP:RS coverage, including many superlatives. Use the "WP reference" link at the top [25], and the WP:Advanced source searching#Reliable Sources Search Engine. Easy meets WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Softlavender (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of substantial national and local coverage from established sources, and it is regularly noted as one of the main culinary attractions in Nashville. And in reading through the previous deletion discussion it was very heavily influenced by misleading arguments and analysis from sockpuppets.--Bernie44 (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's substantial coverage to establish notability as already shown above. And I believe any article that's not G11'ble, that's means it is promotional tone is fixable if there's any. And existence of more sources already shown both in the previous AfD and here. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep its fine. i trimmed a bunch of padding about hot chicken but it meets GNG for sure. Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 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. I don't see the promotional tone here but this is a clear WP:NORG fail. No prejudice against recreation with better sources. A Train^talk 20:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Zindagi Trust[edit]

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

Nothing of significant kind to pass WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

delete advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not an advertisment. There is no advertising it it, at all. It is a charity that provides blood screening for druggies. scope_creep (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So where is coverage to pass WP:NORG? Störm (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it doesn't read like an ad, it fails WP:NGO and almost seems like a directory listing. --QEDK (桜 ❄ 伴) 19:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Club Asturias de Puebla[edit]

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

A defunct amateur club. Does not pass either wp:gng or WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 13:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Barney crew[edit]

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

Pure listcruft. I checked the first couple names in most of the sections and none are notable. Page is unsourced, and save for one bluelink is a dead end. I see nowhere to go with this. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're WP:NOT IMDb or the show's closing credits roll. Nate • (chatter) 17:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost all names fail WP:BLP. This is purely WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here's another candidate for AfD: List of Sesame Street crew. Ajf773 (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~per WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 (employees)~~ (I guess there's some context there) per Nate. That is outrageously over the top, listing just about anybody who had anything to do with the show. (However, I'm shocked, shocked not to see Hilton Queton named. After all, she or he was a dance consultant for one whole episode.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per LISTCRUFT. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Primefac, Northamerica1000, Ajf773, Clarityfiend, I've also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sesame Street crew (as suggested above by AJ), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not encyclopedic. This isn't for gathering crew credits for television shows. Let IMDb handle that task. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Dahal[edit]

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

All references are in non-reliable sources. WP:BEFORE turns up credulous reports of amazing psychic powers but no actual evidence. A large portion of the current article has no cites and the sources of the claims are not verifiable. Fails the Biographies of Living Persons policy and even general notability is very doubtful. While it is undoubtedly possible for fraudulent psychics, etc. to become notable (e.g., Jeane Dixon), the coverage of this boy does not appear to rise to the necessary level as yet. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Eggishorn (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far below needed source level for an article on a seven year old.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At a minimum, WP:TNT as the current article is just that bad. Sources are iffy at best and would cover 3-4 sentence article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Google boys" are a fad in India, but all, including this one, have no serious coverage that could enable an objective article. WP:SENSATIONal tabloid coverage is not enough. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Oh God, another BLP of a minor being used by adults. Can't we just nuke these on sight? Mangoe (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article. Cardamon (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just awful. Neutrality^talk 06:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. In reply to Mangoe, I don't think WP:A7 applies here, and don't feel any possible new CSD criteria for BLPs of minors would get consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Is "blech" a valid rationale for deletion? It should be. Carrite (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Preludes (Messiaen). There appears to be some content in this article that's not present at the redirect target but yes, power~enwiki is correct, this could have been handled at the article's talk page. A Train^talk 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Un reflet dans le vent[edit]

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

There is already an article about the set of 8 preludes that contain this piece. This article adds nothing to it. Squandermania (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Preludes (Messiaen). This possibly could have been done without an AfD. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Sisk[edit]

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

Wayne Sisk was a junior NCO in E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) during World War II; his rank (sergeant) and lack of high-level awards (highest Bronze Star Medal) make him non-notable under WP:SOLDIER; he was mentioned in Ambrose's Band of Brothers as being involved in the killing of a Nazi officer in Austria under orders of the company commander, Ronald Speirs. Post-war, he was ordained as a Baptist minister but, outside his local area in West Virginia, enjoyed little notability; his wife appeared in local news stories more often than Sisk himself. He was portrayed in nine of the ten episodes of the miniseries. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I see nothing notable in his military career; and that as a Baptist minister looks equally ordinary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being the subject of a miniseries alone does not make someone notable, and nothing else even comes close.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M Howard[edit]

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

Businessman who does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Appears to be written by an editor with an undeclared conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly WP:TOOSOON. A lot of the references aren't about him at all, and the references to him being CEO of Telligent aren't enough for WP:GNG. There is a Bloomberg bio [26] but that's about it. Regarding a redirect to Telligent; he is at a new company which may become notable, so a redirect may be inappropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Prior[edit]

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

This article is sourced entirely to 2 primary sources, and the google hits aren't very promising. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject insists that the information is largely incorrect; an assertion that is difficult to dismiss without quality sources to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:11, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 2 refs neither of which assert notability, the article appears mundane. Szzuk (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete LOL, When I first saw this I thought not only does he deserve an article, but he was pretty damn funny too. Then I realized the spelling was different (not Richard Pryor). Unlike Richard Pryor, this has no sources and doesn't clear GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusf10: Don't feel bad. My first interaction with this article was when a person claiming to be the BLP in question asked for information to be changed. I had literally started to comment "RUN!! It's a zombie!!" before I noticed the spelling and checked the article. Luckily, I hadn't hit "Publish changes" yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here suggests particular notability. Dunarc (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've found some local news articles such as [27] and there are mentions in news articles outside of the region such as Washington Post [28] and The News-Gazette / Champaign-Urbana [29] The stuff the editor wrote saying things were incorrect were mainly concerning his degrees at educational institutions. He still was a conductor for Atlanta, Emory, and LaGrange [30] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. I didn’t even find evidence that this page ever existed. I have, however, flagged your user page per U1, if that’s what you want. (non-admin closure) LaundryPizza03 (talk) 13:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ChristiWilken[edit]

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

This page is useless ChristiWilken (talk) 12:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 15:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon Wallet[edit]

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

Of the hundreds of Bitcoin wallets available, this defunct wallet does not stand out. Notability not established. Ysangkok (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article. Atlantic306 (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG per a review of available sources, some of which include [31], [32], [33]. Many additional sources are also available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources present are enough to show passing WP:GNG. It is worth noting, this article from The Wall Street Journal and this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Too much coverage to delete, meets WP:GNG easily. scope_creep (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've never heard of this product, but independent reliable sources clearly have. That's what counts. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surpasses WP:GNG due the the amount of reliable sources that have mentioned it in detail. As nominator said there are hundreds of Bitcoin wallets out there, but how many of them actually have been mentioned as much as this one has by news sources and such. --Clarkcj12 (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Steinger[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Steinger

Articles for deletion/Michael S. Steinger

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

Seems to be a non-notable lawyer who unsuccessfully represented a client in an action against a celebrity, and failed to win a nomination to the Senate. I don't believe he meets WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The rule of law is important and he does appear to be politically/civically engaged, but given the overabundance of lawyers now, he really has to separate himself from the pack. He fails to do this. I don't see adequate in-depth coverage from reliable sources.Knox490 (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete defeated candidates for state legislature are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where I live I see his commercials (and just recently I hired a lawyer like Steinger to represent me after I was struck by a car while out for my morning walk) for his law firm all the time. That said, not notable lawyer and failed politician....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article on this person was previously deleted after an AFD. The discussion can be found here. I nominated this article for speedy deletion and suggest both articles be SALTED if this edition is deleted again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Condorito. (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pelotillehue[edit]

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

Completely WP:INUNIVERSE (except for the first sentence), unreferenced, some WP:OR, no indication of real-world notability. At the very least, could be redirected to Condorito along with the other two town names mentioned in the article; that’s why I didn’t PROD it. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not independently notable, but is a plausible search term. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket Galaxy[edit]

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

no indication of either CORP or GNG here. This is simply an advitorial John from Idegon (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7 / G11; promo 'cruft on a nn business. I requested such; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rob McVeigh[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NACTOR. Run-of-the-mill actor. Edwardx (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unsuccessful reality show contestant, who has done some theatre performing, but nothing that rises to the level of being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshiki Nakajima[edit]

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

Non-notable voice actor whose filmography consists of minor roles. No reliable third-party sources cited to support any claims. Does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:NOTE. Disputed prod —Farix (t | c) 01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: Looking through the ANN bold entries:
- Beyblade: Shogun Steel - Torimaki E not listed in characters on the wikipedia article
- Dynamic Chord - yuki - not listed in characters on the wikipedia article
- The Idolmaster SideM - not listed in List of The Idolmaster characters
- RWBY - Neptune - recurring but not starring character
- Sengoku Night Blood - not a notable title

So based on this, he does not meet WP:ENT Chances of finding featured news articles about him are slim. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or draftify - Considering his lack of major roles, he arguably does not pass WP:ENT. He does however, been covered in at least two Japanese-language sources: this and this. Both are interviews, and consensus is mixed on whether or not interviews are enough to establish notability, but these do exist. Non-interview sources were harder to find, but some do exist, like this one. With the sourcing available and the fact that Japanese voice acting coverage can be limited to begin with, the coverage out there might just be enough to pass at the very least WP:GNG. If consensus is not to keep, I would suggest draftifying the article instead of complete deletion in case he gets more roles and/or gets more coverate in the future. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Existing references are completely insufficient for a WP:BLP. The "wait-and-see" approach advocated by BabbaQ is not appropriate for a BLP. A Train^talk 13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Lidbom[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. He does appear to have written some songs performed by others, but there is no evidence that any reliable and independent sources have written about him. Appears to be competent jobbing song writer. Has been templated since September 2017 as needing sources. Searches only reveal the same sort of material - track listings etc. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 00:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per references. It is obvious that he has done the work in music that the article states. I think that Keep for now is the best. For a new evaluation in a year.BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability. Sources included are online directoris, passing mentions, and / or WP:SPIP. If there are indeed reliable sources on the subject, they should be presented at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between wanting sources and non notability. A article could nedd more sources and still be notable like in this case. This article passes WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean-up service. BabbaQ (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Erma (webcomic)[edit]

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

I do not believe this article meets the general notability guidelines. I have been keeping track of this subject for a while hoping to be able to create an article on it someday, but only one reliable source has ever covered it (that being Bloody Disgusting, twice: [34] [35]). Nearly all of the citations currently used in the article are primary sources linking to the webcomic itself, Tapastic, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. There is also this blog post, which is not a reliable source and this top list, which is not reliable or notable either. Seeing as Erma does not meet the general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. It is unfortunate, seeing as how much work seems to have gone into it. ~Mable (chat) 09:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. ~Mable (chat) 10:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator. Fails GNG. Cjhard (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep two good articles on the topic in what seems to be a reliable source. The name makes it hard to search, but I too am not turning much up. Very popular comic on imgur and reddit, I'd expect to see more. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: How exactly is coverage by a single reliable source considered significant coverage? ~Mable (chat) 09:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Maplestrip: I think he means because there are two articles. Yours Sincerely, HarrisonSteam (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It's borderline, but both articles are pretty detailed. Technically qualifies as "multiple" and there is enough there to build an article around. But it isn't an obvious case. A !vote to delete is certainly justifiable. Hobit (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hobit: I think the stronger case is that multiple articles from the same publication does not qualify as multiple sources. This is suggested by the note for the 'sources' part of GNG, which states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The GNG also specifically states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I feel like these parts of GNG were specifically directed at clarifying what I would assume to be the common sense interpretation of 'multiple sources': what is required is different sources, independent of each other. Cjhard (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Hobit.
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. Also, probably WP:TOOSOON. Sources are supposed to be intellectually independent of the others. This means sources are supposed to be from various publishers. Not multiple sources from the same publisher. Create this article later, when more sources emerge. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only coverage in one RS, meaning it does not meet the GNG, and there do not seem to be any suitable redirect targets. Would be a viable article once/if more RSs discussing the comic in detail emerge.--IDV^talk 16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for insufficient coverage. I agree with Maple that The Prose isn't reliable. If additional sources become available, I don't oppose re-creation. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see enough coverage to meet GNG; the Bloody Disgusting links aren't enough for me. This feels like more of a TVTropes topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A Train^talk 13:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2021 NBA All-Star Game[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTALBALL and GNG, can be recreated in future James (^talk/_contribs) 21:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Basketball Association or NBA All-Star Game, for now. It could also be a very weak keep, as there is already info on where it will be held. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Venue, date and city named; we have what we need for an official article. Nate • (chatter) 04:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This is over three years away....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please Save The Article it's very Important. 68.102.39.189 (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - For now at least. It is far too soon to create these types of articles. When All-Star discussion for this game exists, it can be re-created.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point, WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redirect, and salt until 13 February 2021. Every sentence is written to state events in 2021 in Wikipedia's voice. 2021 sources are not currently available, so the statements in the article cannot be verified. There is only one reference in the article, a primary source. Fails WP:DEL7. Also fails ~~WP:DEL8 via~~ WP:SUSTAINED, WP:Notability (events), and WP:DEL14. Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is inconsistent to advocate "redirect" and state that it fails WP:DEL8, so I struck that. I am adding that it fails WP:DEL14 and WP:Notability (events). WP:DEL14 is for WP:NOT, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER #2 states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, [or] sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps WP:Notability (events) gets to the core issue when it states, "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, [and] diversity...of the coverage." 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [Note: DEL12 changed to DEl14. Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)][reply]

Keep It is typical to keep a planned major sporting event once the date and venue has been decided, or when the process of selection is advanced to the point that the process is noteworthy. This achieves that. Trackinfo (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, even less information than 2020 NBA All-Star Game, though it is already scheduled to take place in Indianapolis. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NBA All-Star Game, though I'd be fine with a keep. A (tentative) date and place are set, but nothing more is known or is likely to be known for quite some time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since everybody else was too lazy to do so, I added the current story about the event to the article, discussing the known knowns. Trackinfo (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the designation "key bus route" is not being set by an independent source, but one could make the same argument for List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, for example. This is not me trotting out an other-stuff-exists defense; what I am saying is that perhaps there should be an SNG discussion to decide the issue more broadly.

If a merge is appropriate, that can be discussed at the article's talk page. A Train^talk 13:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of key MBTA bus routes[edit]

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

Per WP:NOR. Bus routes are almost always non-notable and an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not an arbitrary selection of routes, but rather, the set that the MBTA has itself identified as "Key Bus Routes" [36]. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So, basically, self-published. Ajf773 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- - For large, bureaucratic and institutional values of "self", I suppose. The point I wanted to clarify was where this particular choice of route numbers came from, not whether those same routes are considered "key" by anyone other than the MBTA. XOR'easter (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N.Charles (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a group of routes officially designated by the public transit agency as having high importance - not original research whatsoever - and given significantly higher profile and priority than local routes. (Compare List of Metro Express (Los Angeles County) bus routes and List of express bus routes in New York City, which are also based on the agencies separating out the routes.) They were chosen by the agency as their highest-ridership routes (not arbitrary selection criteria); most are also historically significant routes (and the article focuses on the historical significance of those routes rather than functioning as a travel guide) for which detailed reliable sources are available. The routes were the focus of a major construction project with BRT-light features, with the explicit intention of differentiating them from conventional local routes. They are given a high profile on the MBTA website, included on the MBTA rapid transit map, separately defined in the agency's current service delivery policy, and were the routes used for late-night service three years ago. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically everything you've added to this debate is direct from the MBTA website. Primary sources, no notability established whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535:, would you mind weighing in on the proposal below to rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes? I'm hoping the change would reduce future confusion on the purpose of this article. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MBTA's selection of certain bus routes as "key" has been discussed by news media in the context of new transit maps being designed, debates over late-night service, etc. [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] It's a niche topic, I suppose, but it can be written about in a way that does not make the page a travel guide. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, looking over the other "list of bus routes in X" articles currently being AfD'ed, I'd say that out of all of them, this looks the least like a travel guide and the most like a "history of public transit in X" article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Four more news items about the Key Bus Route Improvement Program [44] [45] [46] [47]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And a couple more: [48] [49]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having a look at those sources I can conclude that most of them fail to mention any specific bus routes, most of them only give out trivial mentions, all the sources are local (therefore the depth of coverage is not sufficient enough to grant notability) and a few of the sources appear to be self published. Ajf773 (talk) 08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a side comment: Since when it is a rule that non-local source geography required to establish encyclopedic notability? If we used that as a hard rule it would wipe out a large swath of transit-related articles, where the subject matter is regional and therefore the bulk of available sources eminate from that region. I usually see national coverage raised as an issue when establishing the notability of short-duration events, not enduring establishments like transit systems or their core components. The MBTA has maintained a "Key Bus Routes" designation for over a decade now, with real effects on a regional transit system and its users, which supports notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Boston magazine is not self-published. Nor are the Globe [50], WBUR, BostInno, Wickedlocal.com, Boston.com or the BU campus newspaper. I think Patch.com exercised editorial oversight as well. I left out search hits on sites like Universal Hub which look to be more on the "blog with a readership" part of the spectrum. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those sources make no mention of bus numbers or the to and froms and most of those aren't reliable sources either (some are, most aren't). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Partial Merge to MBTA Bus. There are several other articles on Boston bus routes; I can't find any rule-based reason to keep those pages or the per-route descriptions (in the "Route list" section). However, the designation of these as "key routes" isn't WP:OR and there's enough information that it should be mentioned somewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Still looking for a good independent source (other than a primary source by the MBTA operator) that establishes these are key routes and worthy of an article. Ajf773 (talk) 08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rename) - The nominator appears to misunderstand the subject matter here, which I can understand given the title. This is not a subjective and original list of key bus routes in a city, it's a page describing a category of bus routes in Boston formally designated as "Key Bus Routes", a unique status with distinct features (both operationally and legally/funding-related) that differentiate them from other MBTA bus routes. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this usage, as indicated above. While the MBTA is a primary source, many transportation articles rely partially on primary sources for the simple reason that secondary sources just don't repeat material found in primary sources. However, since this page is more than a mere list and ask explains the history and characteristics of Key Bus Routes, I would propose removing the confusing "List of" and renaming to MBTA Key Bus Routes. I would be willing to do post-move cleanup work to better serve the new title. Shelbystripes (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(To be clear, I endorse keeping either way, whether the move/rename is also adopted or not.) Shelbystripes (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming sounds like a good idea. The fact of the existence of a separate category of bus routes is more significant than the particular numbering of routes within it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is fun: while looking for local/regional government sources (of which there are some — city councilors and such), I turned up a civil engineering master's thesis from MIT on this topic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the subject matter perfectly. The AfD questions both the criteria of key bus routes being original research and whether any of the bus routes are notable in their own right (or as a collective). It appears from all the sources presented, that the key bus routes criteria is a self published by the bus brand themselves and that notability is yet to be established as the sources are mostly trivial mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the fact that you keep referring to this as a "self-published list" (and to a regional multimodal transit agency as a "bus brand") shows you don't know the subject matter at all. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to a rename. "Key Bus Routes" appears to be used as a specific noun phrase in most of these sources. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes program) - The article needs to be expanded to include more about the history of the program and the current improvements they're working on for these routes, but it has gotten a lot of press over the years for the reasons others have stated, including late night service and key-route-specific bus stop improvements and treatments. I don't understand the "original research" claim by the nominator as that is for editors on Wikipedia, not government agencies providing the service in question. As for "self published", where else would this information come from if not the MBTA? Other editors have provided link after link of sources from reliable news outlets outside of the MBTA's control to show the notoriety and depth of press coverage in the region. While someone in another country might not care much about a list of bus routes in a random medium-sized city in the US, can't that be said about a vast majority of articles on Wikipedia about local and regional matters? Grk1011 (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Again. Routine coverage about night services and bus stop improvements is trivial at best. Where is some actual resources showing the history of these "key routes" from valid third party and independent (non MBTA published) sources. Wikipedia is not a bus fansite catered to a small audience. Ajf773 (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Independent third party sources discussing Key Bus Routes were already provided above by another user. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which ones, and be specific. Ajf773 (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't been involved in AfDs much very recently, but you're being a bit inflammatory here. Editors can state their reasons and provide whatever backup they feel is necessary. An admin will then read over the responses and make a decision based on the apparent consensus (not votes) of the community. There is no requirement that you, as the nominator, are satisfied with the responses. Grk1011 (talk) 19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm aware that an AfD is a consensus, not a vote. I am, like anyone else participating, allowed to dispute claims. Ajf773 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Your objections have been clearly noted by now. You are coming across as berating each and every editor who votes, not adding anything new in the process, just repeating what you'd already said before they voted. Clearly not everyone agrees with your interpretation of WP:ROUTINE or WP:NOR or WP:N regarding this topic, and they should be free to express votes or ideas contrary to yours without fear of beratement. Assuming in good faith that this is not your intent, your tone and repetition still come across as hostile and may discourage editors who would disagree with you from commenting, undermining the integrity of the AfD process. Please consider the consequences of your continued aggressive responses. Newly participating editors can already consider the quality of sources provided (for example) and your objections to them, since your objections are already recorded further above in full. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Given you understand this is a debate and I am allowed agree or disagree with everything that is added this this discussion, from where I see it. I don't see the need for you to post this, it adds nothing of value to the discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with that. Those who want to keep this article need to actually produce secondary sources that specifically discuss this set of routes, instead of attacking an editor who points out the lack of significant wider secondary coverage.Charles (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The issue was that over a dozen secondary sources were linked in the various responses above, but this editor does not appear to like them, claiming they are either regional press (and somehow bad) or the source of their articles is the primary source (MBTA). I simply pointed out that asking the same question to every single commenter when it's has already been answered is disruptive. It's bizarre that we're expected by this one editor to find some outside source to prove that the MBTA has designated its own routes as key. Only the MBTA can decide that and the criteria for being "key" are listed and sourced. As a government body, its procedures are transparent. Grk1011 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I have mentioned why I don't think they are up to the standard of sources required for notability. Bus routes are not notable unless there is significant and independent coverage in secondary sources. MBTA itself is a primary source. Other sources which mention things like service changes are trivial (and most of them don't even mention any of the route numbers or any mention of "key routes". As there is a lot of historical content in the article space but a lack of sources validating them, I'm still unconvinced. Ajf773 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        That's fine, as long as you actually understand the requirement here is not to convince you personally. Your personal approval is not necessary. Other editors clearly do accept the sources already provided, even if you don't. They're not required to convince you if you insist on remaining unconvinced. You do understand that, right? Shelbystripes (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Merge was discussed and rejected back in 2008 on the talk page. The point is not to say that this topic should or should not be merged, but that it is a violation of WP:Deletion policy to use WP:DEL8 to delete topics with merge targets, and there is no argument made here for IAR. Unscintillating (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, this page is more than a mere list and is not intended to just provide route information; it's a description of a specific subset of bus routes that are treated differently than other bus routes for MBTA operational and funding purposes. To prevent confusion on this point, I proposed above that the article be moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes (and volunteered to do cleanup work to this effect). Several other editors commented in favor of this approach. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is however like the other deleted articles this too fails GNG, I have to disagree this does provide route information (the articles contains numbers, tos, froms, maps and times so as such this fails NOTGUIDE). –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article (and perhaps a few sources) rather than rashly claiming this is a travel guide. Detailing the frequency and span-of-service standards that the agency uses is not a schedule. Giving the official names of the routes (the MBTA and its predecessors have always used number + terminal/route as the official name) is no more a travel guide than saying that Amtrak trains 1/2 is the Sunset Limited. And the map - notably not the current map - is used to illustrate that the agency considers the routes important enough to include on the rapid transit map, not as a map to actually navigate the system. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All in a nutshell it's a travel guide, As you spend your time with everything MBTA it's blatantly obvious you're going to debunk everyones !votes and harp on repeating the same hymn about how it's not a travel guide and how we're all wrong- I'll save you the bother - It's a travel guide, No matter what way or which way you look at it ... it's a travel guide, As I said it includes prices, destinations, bus company names, maps ..... Telling me the map is for this and the prices are for that doesn't prove a thing - I'm judging the article on an outside perspective and how I personally percieve it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article include prices? (Apart from mentioning the $10 million price tag for the Key Bus Routes Improvement Project.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft- or userspace so as to be worked on as suggested. --J04n(talk page) 18:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is inappropriate. I offered to improve the article if moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes to ensure the article aligns with the new title. That work isn't necessary if the article isn't moved. Either way, it's already a developed article with multiple reliable sources and should not be userfied. Shelbystripes (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be worked on and if someone wants to add sources (other than timetables) then they can do so here. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you look at the Category:Lists of bus routes in the United States you will see lots of transit route lists. What makes this one special enough to deserve exclusion from that pattern? Trackinfo (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Simply linking to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-response and adds no value to the discussion. It's an essay (not a policy) and notes that there can be "valid or invalid" reasons for raising "other stuff exists" as an argument, and that when the point is fairly argued, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to me that a valid question was raised (what distinguishes this article from an array of other articles that have been established on Wikipedia), and it is fair to expect a valid answer from you on that, not just a link to an essay that can cut both ways. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not be a policy but a simply concept meaning we don't assume keep because articles of similar nature exist. Many of them are candidates for AfD as well. We don't bulk AfD articles as each article should be assessed on its own merits. Ajf773 (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are using circular logic and mischaracterizing the content of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It specifically says that precedent and concistency are valid reasons to consider, and the question posed to you was what about this article makes it worthy of deletions when other similar articles exist. You completely ignored that question, and posted a link to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of an actual answer. You're now taking that one step further, using the potential for some other articles to be deleted in the future, to argue that this one should be deleted now also. The fate of those AfDs is far from assured, since they haven't even begun yet. Now, can you give a valid explanation for what makes this article less notable than other articles in the same category, as you were asked? Shelbystripes (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the obvious answer from the original question. We simply do not use the existence of other articles as a basis for keeping or deleting articles. We are discussing this article on its own merits, not the merits of other articles. There are plenty of reasons already given in this discussion why I believe this article does not comply with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one article has something it doesn't mean another article should - All articles at AFD are judged on their own, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep any article and as such AJ was correct in linking this here, Can you actually provide a valid reason to keep other than "It exists elsewhere".... –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. Ajf773 was the one who invoked WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify deleting an article. As a mere essay, it alone is not a valid reason to delete any article, when (as actually observed on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". Someone identified an entire category of similar articles, and so far no valid reason has been given for disregarding that whole category of articles when considering this particular AfD. Shelbystripes (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point in bring up the category is that there are 64 lists of bus routes in that US based category (and more globally). Other than this one, I haven't found one that has been taken to AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key MBTA bus routes dating back to 2006, meaning this has been around for, actually 12 and a half years. Poor wikipedia has been in disrepute for all this time because of its existence (that's sarcasm). It also means this one has been taken to AfD twice now. Again, what makes this one special? At the time it was saved as no consensus, even though there were 5 Keeps to 3 Deletes. One of the Delete votes commented astutely; "Delete its a bag of crap.", another was just "per nom", so the argument of that third delete vote had to be a doozey to outweigh all those Keeps. One Keep respondent noted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 which was a Speedy Keep-Withdrawn. If you are prepared to take all of those 64+ lists to AfD, then that is a different wholesale discussion. Otherwise the long term existence of all of this stuff proves a de facto validity to keeping these lists. Trackinfo (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per unscintillating: if it's got a merge target, then a merge discussion is preferred by policy to any deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether this subject is notable for an article depends not on the existence of similar articles, but on whether there is a definite and finite set of routes that have recieved significant secondary source coverage outside of the immediate locality. Without that it is just original research.Charles (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient, not arguing that the general concept of such a list should be deleted.Trackinfo (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the content comes from external sources, it's not original research, even if those sources were published in Boston (which not all of them were). XOR'easter (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient" .... we have ... a good 2-3 times, If you want to ignore policy based reasons then that's up to you but asking everyone to repeat their reasons again and again and again is disruptive, You have your answers above and you have also have solid policy-based !Delete arguments bove .... unlike the !Keeps which are all essentially "Keep because WP:ITSNOTABLE". –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've been adding references to urban-planning studies that investigate individual MBTA key bus routes. XOR'easter (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing to understand that the set of routes taken together need secondary sources. Urban planning studies are primary sources.Charles (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We already have two references not from the MBTA that discuss the grouping of these routes into a common category. In fact, that's what the list is sourced to at the moment. The point of citing references that discuss specific routes within that category is to make historical information available about those specific routes — information that is independent of the MBTA and not characteristic of a travel guide. XOR'easter (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR 45 sources, many of them from government agencies but multiple government agencies reporting this information. Clearly refuted.

Bus routes are almost always non-notable proved false by the existence of the 64 other lists I identified.

an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability. the sources I found in a simple Google search shows these are specifically identified routes based on federal, state, associated cities and the agency itself. The identification of these routes are sourced in the article dating back to 2006, clearly a dozen years before the NOM. Did you really read that? So the basis of the entire NOM is disingenuous to begin with.

Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N an astute echo of the NOM.

Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG Another echo. And there is no WP:BUSCRUFT, you made that up. Following that, yes, finally there is a true statement Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom has been decimated by noms by you Davey2010. And with a discussion by a microscopic number of commenters. What a terrible disservice to people outside of London. The perceived salt of that action is probably what is preventing the other content from reappearing. As to the statement if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website. We, wikipedia, are the primary source of information on the internet. People come here to learn. Even locally, I am astounded how few people know the name of their local bus operator. I happen to have done a documentary that broached this subject so I have done actual research. Ok that statement was WP:OR but its also not in the article. At least here in the US, people don't know how to find the local operator. We, as the place people come for information, should have the information. Then at best they are three clicks away from finding the company, its website and the generic schedule page in varying forms of presentation (some of which absolutely suck). If editors have gone through the trouble to present this information, someone explain in actual words (rather than ambiguous essays or non-existent policy statements), what is the problem with wikipedia having this information publicly available?

I've never been to Massachusetts, I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have a dog in UK, though I have visited decades ago. What I learn is from what is in the article, its attached sources and Google. Unlike a lot of AfDs, there is a lot of there there. I extremely dislike aggressive stupidity trying to push legitimate content off of wikipedia. Trackinfo (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AfD has been relisted multiple times and there is clearly, at a minimum, no consensus to delete. I propose closing the AfD without deletion. Shelbystripes (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shelbystripes has !voted Keep above so ofcourse they're going to say this, Consensus in my eyes is towards delete due to the GNG-failing at best however I !voted delete so shan't say what I believe. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 00:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eager for an outside observer to weigh in now. With the number of editors who have !voted Keep (and given consistent reasoning for doing so) and the utter failure of the Delete commenters to explain why this post warrants deletion when many similar articles are considered notable, I can't see anything remotely close to a Delete consensus. Perhaps someone who hasn't weighed in yet will be able to resolve this mystery. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We've explained a good 3-4 times why it should be deleted, All of the keeps are nothing more than "WP:ILIKEIT - not a valid reason to keep, Alls we need is an admin to come a long, read the consensus and smack the delete button. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's almost the exact opposite of the actual discussion. One Delete commenter literally just linked to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and when pressed on the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says a general body of articles may be considered when evaluating notability in an AfD, basically said "Well I want to nominate those other articles for deletion too". You cannot use your hypothetical future AfDs of other similar articles to justify deleting this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. And reading the rest of the discussion, the consistency of editors weighing in against Delete, and the fact that two relistings were required and still couldn't generate consensus, I can't see how any rational person would interpret this discussion as a consensus for Delete. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't believe this AfD will end up with a consensus. Ajf773 (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I. XOR'easter (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that there's no consensus; the multiple different content change / merge proposals can be discussed elsewhere. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only an uninvolved admin can decide whether there is a concensus, having given due weight to policy based argument.Charles (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge- The history section only should be merged into MBTA Bus. The route descriptions fall under WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTTRAVEL as others have mentioned about.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nada (thread) [edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No sources cited at all and fails WP:Notability. It is very much written like a how-to-do page. Page here: [51]. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as unsourced and more appropriate to Wikidictionary. Quis separabit? 20:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a non-English word for drawstring and has no place on the English-language wiki. –dlthewave ☎ 15:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an English term (at elast not in the sense of the article), of dubious notability, and barely supported (no pun intended) by the reference. Derek Andrews (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While I am sympathetic to Zagalejo's arguments, there is consensus to delete the article. This may be due to the difficulty English-speaking westerners to assess the coverage of the PBA, but the current notability consensus for basketball does not include the PBA (perhaps this should change). Malinaccier (talk) 00:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Salamat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG; I'm not seeing enough significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL, as PBA is not one of the SNGs listed leagues.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete Doesn't meet any notability standards and lacks the coverage required by WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Wikipedia has massive amounts of unsourced content on Filipino basketball, but I do believe a lot of this material is salvageable. In the case of Salamat, I found this, this, and this, for starters, and there's probably more material out there somewhere. I suspect that there's a massive amount of print material on Filipino basketball that most Western editors will never see. (Some tantalizing evidence here.) There's probably a lot of additional material that was once available online, but has been lost to the ages (unless you know exactly where to look in the Internet Archive). It's clear that all of this data in the Wikipedia articles isn't being passed down by oral tradition! Zagalejo^^^ 18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These sources seem like routine sports reporting and are all about his hopes to get back up to the PBA, which isn't even considered a top level league.Sandals1 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People keep citing WP:NBASKETBALL like it's holy scripture, but I think a case could be made for including the PBA. There is a fairly recent discussion about that here. In terms of talent, the PBA may not rank very high, but in terms of fan interest and media coverage, it's a reasonably significant league. The definition of "routine sports coverage" is a tricky one, but these articles at least go beyond the basic reporting of game scores and league transactions. Zagalejo^^^ 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a personal call, but I don't think 3 short articles saying he wants to get back to the PBA meets WP:GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 20:33, 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. It would be good if the sources turned up in this discussion could make their way into the article. A Train^talk 13:06, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG due to the lack of in-depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The article fails WP:NOTADVERTISING. Rentier (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although this article is not well sourced at the moment, Sheppard Mullin is most certainly a notable international law firm. It's consistently Vault 100 ranked, has played prominent roles in notable legal events, and they are large and notable enough that prominent legal industry publications cover hiring and personnel changes. This article needs serious improvement in terms of provided sources and tone, but ample secondary sources exist to establish notability. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Shelbystripes. Also dug up some further coverage. [52] Brustopher (talk) 13:13, 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. Nothing so controversial here to warrant an extraordinary third relist. A Train^talk 13:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Life of Black Tiger[edit]

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

This page was a suggestion a while ago but I didn't create it as I found it non-notable. The mention in Kotaku is not a "significant" one but only mentions it off hand as an example of one of the crappiest games promoted by Sony. That leaves Eurogamer and Jimquisition as the only significant mentions and according to WP:VG/S "[The Jimquisiton] cannot be used to demonstrate notability. It fails WP:GNG. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:47, 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 01:02, 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 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the game is probably helped by how bad it is EuroGamer did an article on it. Add that to the two RS in the text, and I think it meets WP:GNG Lee Vilenski(talk) 16:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination rationale has been clearly rebutted by Nick Moyes. A Train^talk 13:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condosity[edit]

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

1) No sources 2) cannot find reliable secondary/tertiary sources on this subject suggesting it isn't that important 3) Wikipedia is not a dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilxFish (talk • contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly an established term - plenty of articles on Scholar use it [53], and there's extended definitions in textbooks [54]. Whether that's enough for an article, I don't know. If not, merge to electrical conductance? At least some sort of definition (maybe in that article) would be good. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've address both long-standing flags for no sources and no links (orphan). I've also managed to find and insert quite a range of independent WP:RS to show this term is in use across a number of scientific research fields. I'd never heard of it before, but that's no reason for deletion. Nor would WP:NOTDICT apply any more, as this article has now been expanded sufficiently to being more than a mere definition. Note to nom: do remember to sign your AfDs in future, please. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I do normally sign my comments, must have just slipped my mind. Thank you for expanding on it I couldn't find any good secondary sources when I tried. EvilxFish (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A Train^talk 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehreen Syed[edit]

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

Struggling to find enough independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no actual show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an advertorial for a nn person. Nothing to salvage here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Article was created really long before and should have already passed notability. Raymond3023 (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm interpreting LaundryPizza03's comment as support for deletion. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to UZi if a good article can be written there. A Train^talk 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gab3[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. This singer is notable primarily for his work as a member of the musical duo UZi. The sources cited in the article consist of primary source interviews, articles which make trivial mention of this person, or sources that support his notability through his work in the duo UZi. A online search revealed few secondary sources to support notability, independent of UZi. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 03:19, 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 09:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it would be appropriate to delete this page and create UZi. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reviewed the footnotes and the musical artist lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Perhaps it is merely a case of Wikipedia:Too soon. I have my doubts given the nearly decade long career of the artist, but things can change given persistence, refinement of skills, etc.Knox490 (talk) 02:16, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Beckner[edit]

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

At first glance, the number of sources create the illusion of extensive coverage. However, many of these sources are either unreliable or do not describe this musician in-depth. I'm afraid Beckner does not pass WP:GNG; his bands are not notable, his albums were released independently, and I can't find any major chart listings/awards. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 09:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having looked some myself, I would agree with TheGracefulSlick's assessment. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also suspect that the page creator (Mediaforthemasses) may be associated with Beckner, such as his agent or PR person. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 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 redirect to Dreamcatcher (band). No prejudice against restoring article if sufficient coverage can be found to warrant it. A Train^talk 12:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fall Asleep In the Mirror (Dreamcatcher album)[edit]

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

Fall Asleep In the Mirror (without the disambiguation) was redirected to Dreamcatcher (band) a few hours ago by Explicit and was proposed for deletion on 26 December by Boleyn. I haven't looked for sources much, though there is an English-language review which may or may not have had editorial oversight. The Korean Wikipedia article has no sources, though there are probably some Korean-language reviews out there. Jc86035 (talk) 09:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment KpopBoy, if you disagree with a page being turned it a redirect, challenge it, don't create another article the same at a different title, that's disruptive and confusing. Boleyn (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move and/or redirect - Move to Fall Asleep In the Mirror, or redirect this and Fall Asleep In the Mirror to Dreamcatcher (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:41, 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 no consensus. A Train^talk 12:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William Tempest[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is certainly promotional. However the sources are enough. When Vogue and other RS write about your work like they seem to have done many times for this guy, GNG is met. Lots of mentions in other sources too, if you search. His school wrote him up, Marie Claire interviewed him about Pajamas, the Guardian had this short piece, the Telegraph reviewed his collection and Fashionista profiled him. Those aren't perfect sources, but they are enough for GNG. The article being promotional and/or created by an SPA are not reasons for deletion. The three reasons fro deletion advanced in the nomination are therefore all false. 104.163.155.42 (talk) 07:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Looks like I was distracted by the promotional stuff, and did not look into this as well as I should have done. Am now editing the article to make it more neutral. Edwardx (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat. If you have changed your mind, you could withdraw the AfD.104.163.153.162 (talk) 00:23, 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 01:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The refs in the article don't support notability so I can see why this is at AFD. The refs provided above are better but still look on the weak side so i'm leaning to delete but will reserve judgement as better refs might be forthcoming. Szzuk (talk) 21:07, 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 09:04, 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. ansh 666 06:59, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Padikkal[edit]

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

Non-notable. Non of the articles listed as reference or in google search go even an inch towards notability — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 10:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that the "sources" given by Arsh 18 consists mainly of trivial interveiw with the subject in question. Also the mention at Bharya (TV series) is unsourced .Most of the coverage the actress has received seems to be from fan mags and a few interviews from newspapers — comment added by Force Radical 🎆talk 🎄 contribs🎆 09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Finding her funny bone on tv, Anchor-actor Alina Padikkal on her journey & Romance is not my cup of tea, I love action more: Alina Padikkil ; these articles from the most valued and taken news websites has proven that the actress is more notable to be encyclopedic. --Arsh 18 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any idea about Indian TV, but Bharya (TV series) suggests she is notable. She seems to be similarly notable as Ronson Vincent. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article got independent coverage. @Arsh 18 add few more news sources, can keep as per WP:BIO.Genome$100 (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Typical trivial promo-covg/interview.Encyclopedic notability ain't so cheap.Winged Blades^Godric 15:42, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NACTOR just yet. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interviews are primary sources and therefore not counting towards notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rune Husk[edit]

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

Minimal coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found a number of dedicated articles from reliable sources per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES.

Enough to meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 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 08:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage isn't stellar, but I don't see a benefit from deletion, and the article could be expanded a little using the available sources. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so the question is whether to merge this content to Donald Trump on social media or keep it separate. But we don't have consensus about this either. The merger discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used by Donald Trump[edit]

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

Listing the nicknames of people Donald Trump assigns them on Twitter is trivial at best. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - or else merge with article on Donald Trump on social media. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an encyclopedia of Donald Trump, which from the way things are going, one wonders whether it is becoming. Vorbee (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extensively covered by WP:RS, there's also a Bush counterpart - List of nicknames used by George W. Bush.LM2000 (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump on social media would not be a good article to merge with because a lot of these names came out of his mouth from the podium during the campaign.LM2000 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Maybe Bush's nicknames aren't notable enough, but Trump's unique usage of them passes GNG and is frequently mentioned in media. - User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 09:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selectively) with Donald Trump on social media W's names are completely affectionate, while Trump's are universally insulting. We don't tolerate bullying here, so why are we enshrining it in encyclopedic form? Nate • (chatter) 18:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - if other presidents have a page for their nicknames, then Trump needs his (regardless if bullying or not, based on if it's noteworthy). However, merging would also be reasonableWikizenx (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Selective Merge or~~ delete. Honestly, some editors believe whatever is currently in the news must be notable. Every single aspect of the President is covered but Wikipedia isn't the database of Donald Trump nor is it news, especially of this low degree. The fact that other stuff exists doesn't concern me. ~~And by "selective" I mean one or two sentences describing the fact Trump likes using nicknames on his opponents.~~ The article on Trump's social media activity already covers this well.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
very selective merge to Donald Trump on social media. Delete- Yes, the fact that Trump makes up unfunny and insulting nicknames for people is mildly noteworthy. No, it is not encyclopedic to enshrine every single one of them on Wikipedia, and Donald Trump on social media already contains enough of them. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't see a need for a merge, since the notable instances are already included in the proposed target, such as Donald_Trump on social media#Insults. This is WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT: an indiscriminate collection of information. None of the nicknames are individually notable, so it does not make sense to combine then into a list. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This currently passes the GNG. I have no reason to believe it will be a temporary article. It could be expanded in scope, but I don't think it should be deleted. My CoI, Dave Walker has been called "DC Dave Walker" by the Connecticut Democratic Party. Events like this might help solve any Notability is not Temporary problems. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Donald Trump on social media. These are largely from Twitter; the few that have been used more often ("Liddle Marco", "Pocahontas") can be discussed there. And these are largely just derogatory epithets, not nicknames. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, as it contains several accusations of mental illness made by someone who is clearly not qualified to diagnose mental illnesses. While that might be fine in a prose article that explains the context, this does not. It just asserts (Living person)=mentally ill. It likewise asserts of several living people that they engage in unethical activity, again without context. It would also be pretty strange to keep a page full of DT's nicknames mocking the physical appearances of other people, considering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian. Egsan Bacon (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. This is an example of what we can do for our readers (documentation of slang proffered by the President of the United States). P.S. Donald Trump is a piece of shit that should be impeached. Still, this seems WP-worthy. Carrite (talk) 03:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some evidence for a GNG Keep: "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Pocahontas,'" Fox News. Carrite (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "It's not just 'Rocket Man.' Trump has long history of nicknaming his foes," USA Today. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "The running list of President Trump’s nicknames for political rivals," New York Daily News. Carrite (talk) 04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "From 'Sleepy Eyes' to 'Rocket Man', the list of nicknames Trump has invented," Singapore Straits Times. Carrite (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Presidential name-calling: What 'Little Marco' has to do with 'Rocket Man' (and nuclear weapons)," CNN. Carrite (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Did Trump nickname people in school, too?," NBC (video). Carrite (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "Trump's nicknames for rivals, from 'Rocket Man' to 'Crooked Hillary.'" TownHall.com. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "No, Donald Trump Is Not Good at Nicknames," Slate.com. Carrite (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "An illustrated guide to the weird names Trump called his rivals," Revelist.com. Carrite (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And "'Crooked Hillary,' 'Lyin' Ted Cruz': How Donald Trump Picks His Disparaging Nicknames for the Other Election Players," People magazine. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oppose merging, especially with Donald Trump on social media, since a lot of the nicknames do not originate from his usage of social media. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under WP:GNG given frequent coverage; unlikely to be temporary; analogous article exists for Bush; and not all on social media, so I wouldn't combine with that. Understand the concern above about his comments on mental health (and the abusive, insulting, childish nature of these nicknames) - would be all for making it clearer that these are just verbatim quotes not endorsements, if that isn't sufficiently clear, but I don't think that negates the usefulness of having an article compiling them. Perhaps more balance could be instilled, and useful context provided, by [[[editing]]] to add a prose section on commentary around/response to the insults.` Wikiminaj123 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The use of nicknames will be a noted historical aspect of Donald Trump and his presidency. It will be considered a major staple of his brand. It is essential that this article be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Flying Soda (talk • contribs) 05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant news coverage of this topic in aggregate - [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], etc. etc. Samsara 06:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. bd2412 T 03:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Gaier[edit]

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

DePRODed by creator. Concern was: Bit part/voice actor in animations. No in-depth sources in mainstream media. Fails WP:NACTOR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 09:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, original PROD rationale was incorrect, there are a number of mainstream sources on the page, not all film credits are from animations, either. I would say it passes point 1 of WP:NACTOR in part, the multiple films however is an issue, which I am looking to resolve. Dana has recently been on stage but I'm struggling to find any sources. Nightfury 09:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress, which just does not bring the same level of attention to the performer as live roles do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hmmm. I guess one could make the argument that she has "only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress", but it's both blatantly not true and it's a featured role in the Despicable Me (franchise), described as "the highest-grossing animated film franchise in box office history, and the 12th highest-grossing film franchise of all time." Again, the rush to deletionism leads editors to arrogate the role of deciding that notability is based on what they think is unimportatnt. Just because I'm uninterested in country music and have decided that being a country music performer "does not bring the same level of attention to the performer" of other forms of music (the ones I like, of course) would be a piss-poor argument for deletion of an article about a country music performer and it's equally invalid here as an excuse for deletion. The claim for notability is strong and the sources here and those available elsewhere establish that claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale of Alansohn. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm not convinced being in multiple films in Despicable Me (franchise) meets significant roles in multiple notable films for WP:ENT, and her other roles are not notable. However, the coverage of her appears to meet WP:GNG (in addition to coverage already in the article, there is this student newspaper interview). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Melbourne Beth Din. The only particularly strong keep argument is from Alansohn and there is a rough consensus to delete. However, Melbourne Beth Din is a valid redirect target (per WP:ATD-R) and since the subject is (long?) dead there are no BLP concerns from keeping the article history intact. A Train^talk 21:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sholem Gutnick[edit]

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

Sources in article are passing mentions. BEFORE doesn't bring much better (a few more passing mentions, in particular regarding his brother/sons). Heading a beth-din by self-appointment does not seem sufficient for WP:JUDGE. Icewhiz (talk) 08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His role in his community for 40 years and certainly his role as a judge for 20 years are strong claims of notability. The source from ABC (Australian TV channel) is entirely about him and his role at the bet din. In the absence of a hierarchical structure in Judaism, most judges will be self appointed and what's relevant here is not that he appointed himself but that he was accepted by the community at large for two decades combined with the issues of how he conducted himself, all of which were covered in depth by a reliable and verifiable source. Other, similarly strong sources are also available to be added, and I'm sure that if I knew Australia better that there would be further references available. Alansohn (talk) 16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The ABC source is a radio show from 2002 upon the dissolution of the beit din. Most beit din heads are actually not self appointed - this only happens in small or new communities. Current sources do not support GNG for this individual.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll call bullshit here. The ABC source is the transcript of a radio show (I'm unsure how bolding impacts the quality of the source) that covers him in-depth in the context of his beit din. How it was formed is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you're passing the source of as non-print justifies blowing off the source. Alansohn (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The other 2 sources in the article are crap (Not only is their RSness questionable - they barely mention the guy). The ABC radio interview/roundtable is primarily about the dissolution of the beit din and prospect forward - and not about Gutnick. It is possibly usable (not sure if ABC stands behind what interviewees say - you may have to attribute) - but claiming SIGCOV off of one radio show (that is primarily about a different subject, some coverage of him)? That is a stretch.Icewhiz (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google Books results also show evidence of notability. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All 7 of them are passing mentions or directory entries - often in the context of other Gutnicks (His son, father,or brothers).Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- sourcing is too weak to establish notability as per Icewhiz--Rusf10 (talk) 01:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is a notable person in the community, especially since his removal was not retirement but due to allegations of corruption and extortion from a print article that I could not find online. I am looking for it. An alternative because the online sources are a bit thin would be delete and I could move the information into a new article about the Melbourne Beth Din.--smellytap 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You do have BLPCRIME (or is he dead? You do not have a date of death issues) for the bio. I do agree that the dissolution of the beth din in 2002 would be relevant information on an article on the beth din.Icewhiz (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a nn individual; does not meet WP:ANYBIO / WP:GNG, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A "notable person in the community" means just that: the subject is only of local interest and is not suitable for inclusion. Allegations of nepotism and running a one-man show are exactly the things we should not be putting in an article on a recently deceased person. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- On reflection there is not much about this individual, and most of the publicly relevant information can be inserted into other pages. to answer the other question, he is dead. smellytap 16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources that discuss this indivdual in detail. Of course after seeing som many articles sourced only to the non-reliable IMDb, I begin to wonder if using reliable sources is still a thing on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Melbourne Beth Din per WP:BIO1E. Really only notable for the allegations surrounding his role at the Beth Din, and two reliable sources (an Age article and ABC radio story) does not exactly meet the bar of significant coverage. The article is nothing more than a stub anyway. Kb.au (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Tilton[edit]

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

Notability issue, As most reference are from Wikipedia itself and none of them written about subject in depth. ·•·1997 kB 03:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources about him already in the article plus references available elsewhere combined with his published work meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we need sources about a subject, not ones by them, and the former is lacking on Tilton.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources in the article are about the person. [60] is an interview. [61] is a short biography. There are a few others that count as reasonable reliable sources that are fairly in-depth and independent. Seems above the bar. Hobit (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References 4, 6, 7, and 10 are independent RS discussing the subject in significant depth. GNG is met. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- both sources offered above are interviews and are not suitable for establishing notability:

ThePOGG Interviews – Nathaniel Tilton author of The Blackjack Life
Meet Kennebunk’s own blackjack pro Also based on an interview, with quotes by the subject such as :

Before he knew it. Tilton had perfected an impressive (!) blackjack strategy that was working quite well for him.

“Necessity is the mother of invention, and the result was the creation of a virtually undetectable system, something never before documented,” he said. This discovery prompted him to write the book, “The Blackjack Life.”

The coverage is clearly PR-driven and WP:SPIP, not independent of the subject. Sources in the article is of the same quality: "Blackjack ace from Newburyport turns to financial planning". Newburyportnews.com. Etc. Basically, promotional 'cruft on a nn individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources about him in reliable and verifiable sources establish his notability as a blackjack player / author. There are some crappy, irrelevant and promotional sourcing, but that's an issue for cleanup not an excuse for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of the "sources" presented here as being the best, one is a primary source, and the other is pretty obvious marketing fluff. Neither are useful in demonstrating that this individual meets the WP:GNG. I don't see much better in the sources used in the article, which are either not independent of the subject, or in niche publications that look to have somewhat dubious reliability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of shopping malls in Malaysia. Sandstein 12:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Klang Valley[edit]

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

Another non-notable list of shopping malls. Fails WP: NOTDIR. Vnonymous (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of shopping malls in Malaysia. We don't need area specific lists, state or country wide is fine. Ajf773 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of shopping malls in Malaysia, per Ajf773.Vorbee (talk) 09:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Lists of shopping malls in Malaysia#Kuala Lumpur - per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NLIST, the latter of which requires that reliable sources cover the list's topic. This article does not cite even a single reference. Besides, this list mostly duplicates the Lists of shopping malls in Malaysia. Semi-auto (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of shopping malls in Malaysia or Klang Valley. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:57, 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 delete. Sandstein 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sastika Rajendran[edit]

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

None of the source prove notability. ─ 1997 kB 11:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Rewrite the article with national/international coverage than regional news @Surya suri, can keep after rewriting if qualifies WP:BIO.Genome$100 (talk) 12:46, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV host.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Skygge[edit]

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

speedy declined because 'they are signed to a notable label', in this case an only possibly notable offshoot of a conglomerate. A horrible bunch of promotional fluff about a band tat barely exist, which is why I don't think they are notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 15:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is the "notable label" that are signed to? Without a reference how can such a claim be verified? All I can find is they've posted stuff on spotify and other self-download sites. I'm abstaining from voting because researching this AfD will require--I suspect--reading French (which I can't do). However I am immediately suspicious that any musical act that was formed little over than a year ago and whose first release, as of this writing, is three weeks old, can be considered encylopedic worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need to be able to read French, ShelbyMarion, there are mentions in reliable sources in English: [62], [63]. However, this all reeks of WP:TOOSOON and WP:PROMO, with lots of peacock language, such as a total misuse of the word "breakthrough". Richard3120 (talk) 20:50, 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 07:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not meet WP:NBAND and significant RS coverage not found. Just a bunch of promo 'cruft; belongs on the band's Facebook page, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomaides[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

San Marcos has made national headlines numerous times this year and is one of two small cities in Texas whose mayor has signed the climate mayors. Now more than ever our politicians need to be accessible. I believe through edits this page can pass the guidelines through non promotion and notability. -kmo26 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmo26 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, Kmo26, please indicate what sources are available to add to this article so it can meet notability. And what is a climate mayor? John from Idegon (talk) 07:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://climatemayors.org Climate Mayors are the only leadership in our country who have collectively vowed to stand with the world and combat up against climate change. Happy Holidays to you, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmo26 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete San Marcos may be a notable place, but that does not mean its mayor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Marcos, Texas for now, as there is currently no section on local government there. Unscintillating (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete San Marcos is not a large enough town that its mayors are generally notable. I see no reason to merge the mayor's biography to the article on San Marcos, Texas, but it's possible a sub-page could be created that is a viable merge target. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Guerrero[edit]

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

fails WP:NPOL John from Idegon (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage in the local papers is expected for mayors, we need something more to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to San Marcos, Texas for now, as there is currently no section on local government there. Unscintillating (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bundi State. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rao Surtan Singh[edit]

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

Delete: It relies entirely on only one source, which is a website and websites are not reliable sources in historical articles. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 07:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 07:16, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t get your claim that all websites are inherently unreliable. Is there anything wrong with this particular source? LaundryPizza03 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can check it too. It just lists a list of rulers of Bundi, without ever citing a historical book or any scholarly work. You can find the source on the article's page. Besides, websites can provide as secondary sources for an article, but when it relies entirely on one source, a website, then it can be deleted. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A relatively minor ruler in 16th century India is going to be hard to source. That he is mentioned at all speaks volumes. We need to examine the website in particular. IT may or may not be written by someone knowledgeable. It feels like it was taken from an old printed source. If so, that would suffice for me. We need to search for more sources. It might wind up that we need to merge this into a List of rulers of Bundi. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the rules of an indepent state. As long as his existence is verifiable we should keep the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is indeed notable, but it relies on only one, unreliable source and we cannot just assume that it is from an old printed source, either delete or redirect to History of Bundi. See WP:HSC for more information on citing historical articles. After conducting research on Rao Surtan, I found some websites in which he is mentioned(http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaRajputanaBundi.htm) but none of them ever give a source to where did they get this information. Most of the sites where he is mentioned are mirror sites of Wikipedia.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That being the case, the thing to do is to add a "refimprove"" tag and contact Wikiproject India to see if they can help with sourcing. Perhaps speedy keep as nominator says subject is notable. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Johnpacklambert. We need to dig into the paper sources and find better sourcing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the article, you will see that it has had a refimprove tag since March 2014, but no references have been added.Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a detailed analysis of the website(http://members.iinet.net.au/~royalty/ips/b/bundi.html), I found it does list some books as sources, but they do not cite Rao Surtan. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the final desicion? I've seen that the discussion has been inactive for 2 days. Hagoromo's Susanoo (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hagoromo's Susanoo: Yeah, about that. Deletion discussions run at least seven days. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bundi State as an ((R with possibilities)). His successor Rao Surjan Singh has significantly more coverage, and almost certainly should have a stand-alone article. I can verify this person's existence through a Google Book search, but the snippets are so small I can't determine anything further. Based on blog posts like [64], I expect inaccurate information from Bharat Ka Veer Putra – Maharana Pratap may make its way here if the article is kept without references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

3D Builder[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. No significant coverage found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I expected that software built-in to Windows would clearly be notable, but can't find significant coverage, and [65] suggests it is being removed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Whytall[edit]

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

Biography of a politician whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold a notable office to get a Wikipedia article because of politics per se, and otherwise he has to have preexisting notability for some other reason. But the only other potential notability claim here is that he was the chairman of the horticultural committee for a smalltown Rotary Club, which is in no sense whatsoever a reason why somebody would qualify for an encyclopedia article either -- and the only sources here are a census transcript on a genealogy site, and a glancing namecheck of his existence as chairman of the horticultural committee in a 75th anniversary overview of the entire Rotary chapter. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, offers an actual reason why he would warrant an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unelected candidate who fails our notability guideline for politicians. As Bearcat correctly notes, no other plausible claim of notability is made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delte failed candidates for public office are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nomination says it all..PK T(alk) 23:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 10). Killiondude (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wakefield[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a musician, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on a reality show. As always, this is not a claim of notability in and of itself -- a non-winning contestant can still get a Wikipedia article by actually passing WP:NMUSIC, but is not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for being on a reality show per se. But there's no claim to passing NMUSIC here, and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it: the referencing is entirely to primary sources, social media, podcasts and unreliable blogs, except for a single reliable source which contains no information about the subject at all, but rather is here to support the tangential fact that Nashville is called the country music capital of the world -- which is entirely irrelevant to Wakefield's notability. As always, no prejudice against recreation if and when his notability claim and sourceability actually clear the bar, but nothing here is enough as of right now -- we are not a promotional platform for aspiring future stars, but an encyclopedia about those who've already made it. Bearcat (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable reality show contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 10) See above comment. 71.187.6.198 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice (U.S. season 10) He was the runner-up for season 10 but may be too soon to write an article about him until he reaches Clay Aiken status. Recommend redirect as above to the appropriate season unless someone wants to incubate this in Draft with some more sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article based on his music career. The history will be retained in case he becomes more notable in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and potentially merge some of the material. Will move it to the creators user page. Let me know if you wish the preexisting text. Have added a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SaveCRS[edit]

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

Fails notability criterion. This organization has not received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. The few sources that speak on this organization are local, with one regional example. Additionally this entire article seems to be written and maintained by a member of this organizations board of directors that has cited their own documents. Criticality Incident (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I am the author of this article. There are five independent sources for six of the ten references for this article. Those sources include the major radio and print outlets in the region in which Camp Rising Sun operates (two newspapers and one radio station), and the independent Charity Navigator which reflects the organization's valid 501c3 status. Most importantly the New York Times, a globally recognized news source, covered the situation in depth and fairly, and recognized the existence and role of SaveCRS. Documents from Camp Rising Sun's own website have been included to provide a complete and balanced portrayal of the facts and history.

This wiki article has far more information and independent sourcing than many nonprofit wiki pages.

Lastly the Wiki editor who suggested deletion is an alumnus of Camp Rising Sun who has edited no wiki pages except for Camp Rising Sun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Criticality_Incident and the suggestion for deletion is politically motivated.Rsarlls (talk) 04:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (possibly with selective merge into Camp Rising Sun (New York)) - There isn't evidence of encyclopedic notability for this organization, other than material that relates to the camp and thus can be covered on the camp page. I make no opinion on whether the camp page is notable (since it's not up for AfD) but if this camp-related non-profit has any notability at all, it's in relation to the camp and can be covered on the camp's page. Shelbystripes (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Camp Rising Sun (New York). The New York Times article discusses this group only in the context of longer coverage of the camp, its history, its alumni and its financial crisis. Charity Navigator listings do not confer notability. The motivations of the nominator are not relevant if their reasoning is otherwise sound. This article fails WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (Perhaps merge some of the article with the section on financial difficulties in Camp Rising Sun (New York).) The newspapers are local, not regional, and I agree with Cullen328 that the NYT coverage is in the context of their coverage of the camp itself. Yes, I came out of lurking to work on the camp rising sun page, but almost exclusively to delete sections without npov (there were times when the article looked like it came straight out of a brochure) and to delete attacks on the board members. The fact that other articles on non-profits have even less attention from independent secondary sources is a sign that those articles should also be put up for deletion, not a sign that we should add to the pile. Criticality Incident (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - SaveCRS is a legitimate spin out from the CRS LAJF community and should enjoy notability no different than that of the Protestants or splintered off political groups. Attempting to silence hundreds of dissenting voices has not, and will never work to resolves any differences. Here is an example of a group that was born out of similar circumstances, albeit on a larger scale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Woman_Suffrage_Association. An even more recent and relevant example of groups splintering off as a result of an organization's financial missteps can be found on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests#Free_Cooper_Union, which is separate from the main Cooper Union page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_Union. Are we going to start deleting and/or merging pages of every organization in history that has branched, spun, or otherwise splintered off from an established or larger group? TigerJackson (talk) 14:40, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Helgeson[edit]

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

Does not satisfy biographical notability or general notability. Most of the references are not independent. Google search turns up nothing that has been independently written about him, but the usual vanity hits of what he and GreenRope have written. (Google search also finds another Lars Helgeson, but they are clearly different people.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the section on his career is too fully of buzz words and promotionalism. Even if we could find a way to fix this flaw, there is just no sign that he is notable. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and that is exactly what this article reads like.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:08, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Koby Inc[edit]

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

Spam article changed to a redirect then reverted from redirect multiple times by COI editor (see tag). No evidence in reliable sources this is a notable company or notable person fails WP:N and WP:CORP. The Wikipedia article claims the company name and person's name are interchageable but no sources presented support this claim WP:OR. The references should be removed as spam, but then there would be no references. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional junkpile. No notability.104.163.153.162 (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spamfest, true, but mainly because a before indicates almost zero coverage in reliable sources. Spam, after all, can be cleared up: a fundamental lack of notability can't be. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 01:16, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Kealing[edit]

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

fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NACTOR John from Idegon (talk) 02:35, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regional emmys do not grant notability, and the rest is even less a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 04:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not seeing a lot here, local coverage only.Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

I made a bad call here. Re-closing as delete. There was essentially only one user vying for a keep while three others argued for deletion. It is irregular at best to change the decision after this amount of time has passed. I apologize. Killiondude (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Carr[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet notability criteria Kevin McE (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^{(c · m)}}} 00:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His cycling results are just long enough ago to have mostly aged off the internet, but from the (substantial) coverage of his untimely death, it's clear he was notable in his discipline. "Top cyclist" [66]; "a prolific competition record breaker" [67]; "champion cyclist" [68]; "rewrites record books" [69], etc. Υπογράφω (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I don't think this article is timely anymore, and notability is not inherent. Regardless, he certainly does not meet WP:NCYCLING. And, the only sources are two news articles covering his death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and most of this article is just a news report. See WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. —Formal Dude^(talk) 00:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. He was a multiple national champion and the BBC article confirms this. His premature death is tragic. His life reads a bit like a Greek tragedy. I would like to see the article kept if possible. But if not, I can understand the counter argument for delete.Knox490 (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- does not meet WP:NCYCLING and significant RS coverage not found. Wikipedia is not a memorial. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please review the expanded and more extensively-sourced article. In addition to the web sources I've found, I'm confident there are also print sources from 2002-2005 which will cover his records and death, e.g. Cycling Weeklys 29 October 2005 print edition. Υπογράφω (talk) 06:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are better, but he still does not meet the criteria on WP:NCYCLING. —Formal Dude^(talk) 21:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be arguing that because he does not meet WP:NCYCLING (which strictly speaking and as far as I've been able to determine, is true, albeit by a margin of literally seconds), he is automatically ineligible for inclusion. That's not how WP:NCYCLING or other subject-specific inclusion criteria work. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article -- in other words, if he had won the 2002 national ITT, then I could convincingly argue that sources were likely to exist without necessarily producing them. However, failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways. This is what the sources in the article achieve, showing that a) he received significant coverage for his cycling achievements in both sport-specific and general media even prior to his death, b) his death was covered not merely as a routine traffic fatality but as the death of a notable athlete, and c) the available web sources indicate that there's likely additional coverage available in print archives. In short, it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet WP:NCYCLING because the sources show that he meets WP:GNG. Υπογράφω (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that this does meet GNG. Local newspaper items are not generally considered sufficient, the reports on his death are featured as a case of driver asleep at the wheel rather than victim-centered, and if even the very small circulation national special interest publication only gives 3 lines to the national record, we are talking very niche. The lack of any real biographical info suggests that the press may have considered his results worth reporting, but not himself highly noteworthy. But Wikipedia is not a repository of specialist event results in national level events in minority sports. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it proves your points at all, the sources do not prove he was covered for his cycling achievements by general media. They are not from independent websites. The ones from independent websites all only cover his death. —Formal Dude^(talk) 22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raider Klan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGDEPTH, and WP:MUSICBIO. Except for this and this (which reads like a press release), there is almost nothing published about Raider Klan--except for trivial Soundcloud stuff--to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:55, 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinations and acts of terrorism against Americans[edit]

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

WP:CFORK of two barely-related articles (Terrorism in the United States and List of assassinations#United_States). No need for a combined list. ansh 666 01:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ansh 666 01:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:CFORK. Both list criteria are both completely different and independent and occurrences of either should not be lumped together into one list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This is already covered much better elsewhere. Daß Wölf 04:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes already covered better elsewhere, and there are categories as well.[70][71][72][73][74] Lorstaking (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This could possibly have been adjudged a "keep", but the bottom line is that there is not sufficient consensus to delete this article. Discussion as to an appropriate move or merge can continue on the article's talk page. A Train^talk 07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trump nominees who have withdrawn[edit]

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

The article seems to have no encyclopdeic value, in addition to maybe being a violation of WP:NPOV. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Agree. Not only completely unprofessional and ungrammatical, but do such lists exists for every POTUS? Quis separabit? 01:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge into Political appointments by Donald Trump as some others might suggest. No other lists exists for ex-presidents. Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest} 02:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article was nominated for deletion based on an assertion of WP:NPOV issues. Those issues will be resolved with references. The article will eventually be MOVEd to Trump nominees who withdrew. I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.^{[citation needed]}^{[original research?]} (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD. Secondary sources exist. CNN quoted this: "relative to the number of confirmed people, Trump's percentage of failed nominations is very high," with numbers that followed. More references will follow. In the mean time, we should not lose this article. Rhadow (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Rhadow. Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions. AFAICR no other administration has had the problems dishing out the spoils that the current one has. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, disagree with both @L3X1 and @Rhadow. I find their proposals partisan and selective, and based on their own personal points of view, which their own laughably self-righteous and POV rationales confirm:
"I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.^{[citation needed]}^{[original research?]} (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD.")
and
"Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions."

Ummm, can anyone say CRYSTAL and OR?? If you create such an article list for Trump, then one should be created for every POTUS (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton would appear particularly apropos, but ALL POTUSES should be covered in the interests of fairness and consistency). Quis separabit? 22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response is that OR is for article content not whether or not to have an article. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions." -- that does not sound either reliably sourced or genuinely investigative in nature. What's more, such a list is pointless, partisan, and divisive. Quis separabit? 01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - As pointed out above by Rhadow, the unusually high number of withdrawn nominations is based on observations in secondary sources and is not OR. The fact that other pages don't exist is not a good reason to delete this page. Not every presidency is the same or has the same issues. It's not unprofessional or political to simply create pages for notable events supported by secondary sources. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This discussion has turned personal and partisan. There are plenty of other places to pursue it on the web, but not on an article talk page. Arguments based on WP:OR, WP:NPOV, or even WP:CRYSTAL are fine. Please leave unprofessional, self-righteous, pointless, partisan, and divisive out of the conversation. If you wish to to add to the article that the current administration has been extraordinarily successful at placing appeals court nominees, that's fine. That's a fact. Rhadow (talk) 12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve - I agree to keep this article as mentioned by Rhadow. The article looks a notable one and should be improved with adding references and the article hasn't been categorised yet. Abishe (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move. Honestly, this just doesn't need to be its own article. Moving to Political appointments by Donald Trump#Announced positions from which candidates have withdrawn seems like a perfectly fine solution to me for all the reasons listed here. The fact are (1) this does not need to be its own article as they don't exist for other presidential administrations, (2) the Trump Administration for whatever reason (even if it's coincidental) has had an above average number of officials withdraw their nominations, and (3) this content could be better served to readers within the context of the article on political appointments of the administration in general. We have an article on the spooky similarities between JFK and Lincoln, so I am confident that a simple move is all we need here. Thank you all for the discussion, and I hope to receive your feedback. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump and lose the images. Fits nicely there, no need for a separate article. Sandstein 12:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump, completely agree with the above statement. A logical extension of the existing page. --J04n(talk page) 13:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Political appointments by Donald Trump - the above three comments all explain nicely why this is a very good idea. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Does not comply with WP:NPOV. Why does Trump get a special article about this? To say that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is not accurate. The CNN article that is referenced mentions that Obama had a similar number of withdrawn nominees. It even says "This number is not unprecedented". Also in the CNN article is the fact that Trump nominated less people overall. Trump is then quoted explaining that he doesn't intend to fill many of the positions because they're not necessary. The CNN article also doesn't detail how many withdrawn nominees presidents had in their first year before Obama. How many did either Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have? We don't know.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and if not expanded, merge If other presidents do no have this data, work to create that data set. --RAN (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Sufficiently notable and sourced. Trump's administration is unique in this regard, so the list is worth keeping. The merge, if any, can be discussed on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See no need for a page for withdrawn nominees it is like having a page for rejected job applicants and See no encyclopedic value.Further the claim that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is POV for example John Tyler holds the record for most cabinet nominees rejected by the Senate four and Clinton had five nominee withdrawn while Trump has only one .The notable withdrawals like Cabinet and Supreme Court already have there own pages Unsuccessful nominations to the Cabinet of the United States and Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States and there is a page for Political appointments by Donald Trump.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lots of nominees withdraw, for lots of reasons. Considering how many people get nominated to office by the president, this is just a bad idea for an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is valid list. The list of unsuccessful nominees is actually helpful in connection with other existing pages on US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading the first reference the CNN article itself states This number is not unprecedented, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan nonprofit organization that tracks federal nominations and provides data for CNN's tracker. At this point in his tenure, former President Barack Obama had seen eleven withdrawn nominations, too. clearly showing that this is not unusually high or unprecedented Obama had 11 and Trump has 12 hence do not consider to be notable while it can be stated it is high relative to the number of confirmed people so far can stated in the article Political appointments by Donald Trump clearly do not see a need for a separate article .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading the 2nd reference President Trump's record on filling judicial vacancies has far outdistanced his predecessors.Trump, aided by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has won confirmation of 12 appeals court nominees. That's more than any president in his first year, and indeed, more than Presidents Obama and George W. Bush combined. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Killiondude (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Film Institute[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, and all but one source is from the organisation's own website. —Formal Dude^(talk) 01:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added 13 references of source, added more content in the article. Chongkian (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't agree all sources are from the organization's site, where we have sources from respectable newspapers like Taipei Times and Taiwan Today. In addition to source from Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema which is invaluable academic reference material. This is poor nomination as you've not done WP:BEFORE properly with clear contradiction of your statement and the actual content of the article. Ammarpad (talk) 10:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ammarpad: All of the current sources were added after I had nominated for deletion. See here. —Formal Dude^(talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's why WP:BEFORE is recommend. If you had properly followed the process you are the one who would've found the sources and add. Nominating for AfD usually is the last resort after search fails to bring up any meaninful source or no evidence that sources can be found. –Ammarpad (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliable sources including national press have been found and added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed Atlantic306 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ENI Corporate University[edit]

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

Non-notable corporate entity. Viennese Waltz 15:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Redirect~~ to Eni per ATD-r L3X1 (distænt write) 17:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to delete per KECoffman. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 14:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very non notable and hardly possible search term. Also if redirect is later found to be useful it can be created with only 1 revision. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Eni neither page is prohibitively large, agree that there isn't enough here for a standalone page. --J04n(talk page) 16:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is basically a corporate training department not a "university". There's nothing to merge, as the article does not cite any sources and nor does it contain any meaningful encyclopedic prose. The entire article is pretty much this:

...founded in 2001 through the merger of all the training and education departments of the group. Eni Corporate University mainly shares the goals of the typical Corporate university, and in addition it is responsible for recruitment.

This could be said of any corporate training department. A redirect is pointless; since typing in Eni would bring the reader to the page of the company. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced and no secondary references found. I don't believe it attempts to issue any academic credentials, merely being an internal training division with a fancy name. [75] suggests one of its divisions might accept students and offer a degree, but without at least one secondary reference to that effect this can't be kept. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a consensus among registered editors that the subject's many quotes to do not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject. A Train^talk 07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Howe[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial, in-depth support. reddogsix (talk) 20:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable local journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cameron Howe is a Melbourne-based journalist who regularly works with larger media outlets including, Fairfax and News Limited newspapers, in addition to writing for a number of independent publications. This site should not be deleted for the above reasons.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.26.130 (talk) — 121.214.26.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - please demonstrate how the article meets the criteria in WP:N. reddogsix (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~- the above comments regarding the deletion of this webpage fail to support their claims with any meaningful information, and other Wikipedia users have not been given the opportunity to add further information to this webpage. The comments regarding the deletion of this webpage can only be described as cyber bulling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.26.130 (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is no cyberbulling here and your comment only shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Please see WP:N for information about article inclusion requirements, also please read WP:AGF before responding to anyone's comments. reddogsix (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Consistently quoted and mentioned in numerous news sites. I would recommend holding off. The page was just created and A7 was declined. Subuey (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being quoted is not a criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Please show how the article meets WP:BIO. reddogsix (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see anything that says that. Subuey (talk) 05:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. SunChaser (talk) 01:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have not seen such uniformly poor !votes at an AfD in a long time. I encourage participants to read WP:AADD and actually cite some policies, sources, and attempts to locate sources in their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment per Wikipedia:Notability (people) "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" The sources in the article meet this criteria. Subuey (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Lets be accurate, the full quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". The coverage fails to support notability. reddogsix (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not trivial. It is usually an introductory sentence, and then a sentence or two of quotation.Subuey (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no actual sources discussing the subject himself, only a scant handful of unimportant local sources that either mention him in passing or are written by him. TheValeyard (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage is of state significance on a host of political issues that could determine the result of the next state election in 2018, not to mention that the Mordialloc Chronicle which he writes for has received a capital injection. The Chronicle Newspaper Group is challenging News Corp's Leader newspaper group with the intention of having 55 newspaper by the end of 2018. He currently writes for 3 newspapers and again regularly commentates on issues of state political significance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.108.231 (talk) 06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — 1.144.108.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just to add. He is a media source quoted in national newspapers owned by Fairfax Media - The Age, Bendigo Advertiser, etc and News Corp - The Herald Sun, Leader, The Daily Telegraph etc. Also referred to in a press release by a notable political in state government and had his views read out in Parliament — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.108.231 (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no in-depth coverage about the subject from independent reliable sources. Most are just articles written by the subject of the BLP does not pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. It is not widely cited so it also fails WP:JOURNALIST. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Surely the largest newspapers in Australia are considered to be independent reliable sources? There seems to be 50+ articles of which the subject has been quoted in. Perhaps these could be added to the article on the subject to avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.144.107.112 (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC) — 1.144.107.112 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Quotes are neither in-depth nor non-trivial coverage. reddogsix (talk)}

Show a page that supports that as being trivial. Subuey (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about just common sense? reddogsix (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are bound to be differences of opinion, but policy does not show that these are trivial. Subuey (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being quoted in a newspaper a few times does not make someone pass WP:NBIO. I'd suggest merging to a page on either the Carrum and Patterson Lakes Forum or the Mordialloc Chronicle, but neither have an existing article, nor are they likely notable either. Kb.au (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has been included in discussion within Parliament, Australian TV, national print media coverage and local print media coverage - this overcomesWP:NBIO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.26.97 (talk) 07:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC) — 121.219.26.97 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment It should be noted that all keep novotes, except for the one made by Subuey, have been made by IP accounts with no other prior contributions to the project (except one with 3 edits to another article). --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's no claim that he meets any SNG (including WP:NAUTHOR) or is particularly important in any way. The references (other than his personal website) are him acting as a spokesperson in local news, and are very much reference-bombing (SIX references for "is a frequent media commentator", all of which are simply places he has been quoted in news stories, and not about him or his media-commentating actions). power~enwiki (π, ν) 11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jumanji (video game)[edit]

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

Was redirected to Jumanji the movie by another user. I figured it was worth debating instead. Coin945 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage in reliable sources. Nothing indicates this game achieved any kind of notoriety. I tried several different searches, under varying search terms, and used the "newspapers" search. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2012. So, there has been plenty of time to gather reliable sources and there aren't any in the "references" section. Fails WP:N and WP:NWEB - this topic does not merit a standalone article. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any references for this. Not sure it meets GNG. Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ikando[edit]

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

subject is not notable Johnathlon (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One insubstantial mention in The Toronto Star is all I find. [76]

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