The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) — Zawl 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lene Brøndum[edit]

Lene Brøndum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete: as non-notable actress. Quis separabit? 00:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Has won Guldbagge Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role which sounds like a significant award. Also nominated for European Film Award and won a Robert award. Meets WP:ANYBIO. PriceDL (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The awards she won are notable according to Wikipedia as we have articles on those awards. If we are to be consistent, we should keep the article. She has been in many films too.Knox490 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Won a Guldbagge Award and appeared in multiple films. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No plausible basis for claiming non-notability: flies past notability guidelines on any metric. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'd hate to pile on to the Keep !votes here, perhaps nom would expand on their nomination? It does seems a lot like a JNN nomination. Sam Sailor 00:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR as having had significant roles in multiple notable films, at least as far as I can tell (two of the three listed in the article were at least submissions for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards; while that's not sufficient for those articles' notability, I think it's a good indicator the films were notable in their nations of origin). And the awards would seem to satisfy WP:ANYBIO. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:48, 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. ansh666 02:34, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Kehler[edit]

Jack Kehler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

To begin with this page is a biography of a living person containing no reliable sources. IMDB is not a reliable source, and it is meant to be a comprehensive listing of all actors appearing in film, at least films produced within the Hollywood system and some other similar high budget film making systems, which Wikipedia does not seek to be. Wikipedia requires "multiple significant roles in notable films", or if no significant roles, than the actor has been cited as a major contributor as a character actor. What I was able to find was mainly things like an interview on a local news website done with him because he was in town for a convention, nothing that rose to the level of substantial 3rd party coverage in reliable sources, which is what we need for the general notability guideline, and he does not fit any notability criteria for actors. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as non-notable actor. Quis separabit? 00:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not pass WP:NACTOR. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A small number of minor extra roles is not a notable actor. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 00:59, 7 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) 19:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marnie Alexenburg[edit]

Marnie Alexenburg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Speedy declined. Article has been around for a while but there is no notability that I can see. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – imdb suggests she's only ever had trivial roles. PriceDL (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a BLP lacking any reliable sources. Even if that were not the case, she seems to never had a significant role. Her role in "There's something about Mary" is not even one of 18 listed in the cast section of the Wikipedia article on that film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Add to my reasons that there seem to be no other reliable sources. IMDb seems to be it.Postcard Cathy (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. No reliable sources that I could find, since IMDb is generally not accepted as such. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG and NACtor. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NACTOR; a few years ago this would've been speedied as A7, but I guess things have evolved since then. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:54, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Williams Jr.[edit]

Franklin Williams Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only mentions in WP:ROUTINE game coverage (under the name Frank Williams Jr., he is never called "Franklin" in the sources as far as I can tell). Fails WP:NHOOPS by only playing in a low level pro team and likely only because he is a local KC-area player. Yosemiter (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Telling that he is slated to play in a league that falls below the NBA G League on the prominence scale. Rikster2 (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If I was being optimistic, it would be too soon but this player would be lucky enough to participate in the G-league, let alone a notable professional league.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete TooSoon, GNG and the SNG. L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:02, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Championship[edit]

Defiant Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable entertainment event with no independent WP:RS showing any coverage outside of the entertainment sector itself. Staged wrestling events are entertainment and not covered by WP:NSPORT. This is just promotion of a pre-scripted entertainment show and does not meet WP:N. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep This does have independent WP:RS from cagematch.net Archived 2012-07-03 at archive.today. It also meets the criteria on WP:NEVENT. —FormalDude^(talk) 00:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cagematch is not significant independent coverage. It is a wrestling database with no criteria for inclusion. It can be used to source an article, but not to prove its notability. Nikki♥311 03:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've convinced me more. But it does seem like it would could be WP:LASTING because it creates events and champions. It is on an international stage as well. —FormalDude^(talk) 12:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The promotion itself is struggling to prove notability, and failed a AfD of its own. The championship, doesn't meet GNG due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Cagematch is a database, and can only be used to prove match results, and not notability. It's also quite clearly been made despite being asked not to on the main page. Lee Vilenski(talk) 14:49, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz^Talk 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to a redirect with full protection until notoriety can be proven Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles. Cagematch includes data on everything wrestling related and cannot prove notability.LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:29, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Hardcore Championship[edit]

Defiant Hardcore Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable entertainment event with no independent coverage from outside the business, serving only as promotion for defiant Wrestling Nick Moyes (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for me the article is notable. TheCorageone1 (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoteThis user created the article - Galatz^Talk 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz^Talk 00:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Either redirect with full protection or speedy delete. No substantial merge! There is no valid article here. This is just fancruft. A redirect is harmless so long as it stays a redirect this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Changed to a redirect with full protection until notoriety can be proven Lee Vilenski(talk) 12:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles.LM2000 (talk) 05:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:30, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant Women's Championship[edit]

Defiant Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable entertainment event, with no citations to any independent WP:RS, serving only as promotion for Defiant Wrestling. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for me the article is notable. TheCorageone1 (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NoteThis user created the article - Galatz^Talk 00:07, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Page is a violation of Talk:Defiant Wrestling#Stubbed guidelines which were spelled out after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling resulted in stubify. - Galatz^Talk 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Either redirect with full protection or speedy delete. No substantial merge! There is no valid article here. This is just fancruft. A redirect is harmless so long as it stays a redirect this time. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete was asked nicely on page not to create any offshoot articles until notoriety was shown on Defiant Wrestling after it's own AfD. Created anyway, and doesn't reach WP:GnG regardless. If a redirect is created, we need full page protection to stop this being created again. Lee Vilenski(talk) 15:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Identical content was originally at trial on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Defiant Wrestling; the parent article got stubbed for notability troubles.LM2000 (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Claimed notability is not supported by independent WP:RS. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:32, 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 Speedy Delete as CSD G4. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kordestani[edit]

Milan Kordestani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An article on the same person was deleted less than a month ago here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Kordestani. The subject does not appear to be notable as an equestrian just yet; the awards are "runner up" and similar. The sourcing is passing mentions and / or routine. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete probably could have been speedied as a recreation of a deleted article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the updated information that is now on the page it is no longer solely discussing his merits as an equestrian.antditto (talk) 20:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— antditto (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete non-notable person, the article reads like an ad for the subject. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:51, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are significant sources on him and links providing references to various news outlets. The wording may just needs to be reworded so that it doesn't appear like a promotion. Otherwise, he is notable and complies with WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. --2601:280:8200:F1:132:58E:2B82:5AC (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

— 2601:280:8200:F1:132:58E:2B82:5AC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment -- the article is currently tagged as G4. Given rapid recreation and SPA accounts above, I recommend salting this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:20, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Gonzales[edit]

Norman Gonzales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Detele as per nomination. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:40, 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) 19:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Risë Norman[edit]

Risë Norman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't think coverage of this individual meets the criteria of WP:GNG. References are press releases, blogs (where she's only mentioned), a wedding announcement, and the firm's own site. The Financial Times article requires a subscription (and I can't find the article through my subscription), but from the title it seems like it's not strictly about her. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 21:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Delete a fairly successful business lawyer, but nothing that rieses to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete. Agree, successful attorney. But "partner" is not a WP claim to notability. Agricola44 (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete personal success does not overcome GNG Chetsford (talk) 22:17, 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 speedy keep. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne L. Niederhauser[edit]

Wayne L. Niederhauser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. --Michael White^T·C 21:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a state legislator, the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN. • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Pases Politican and I think it passes the GNG. L3X1 (distænt write) 23:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Member of the Utah State Senate. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep President of the Utah State Senate, and member of that body for over a dozen year. Easily passes WP:NPOL. Trackinfo (talk) 04:42, 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. Seeing as all the opposition to deletion appears to be from socks... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gurinder Bhatti[edit]

Gurinder Bhatti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined speedy. There is one minor mention of him in an article in the Hindu, but not a huge amount else. His company might actually be notable, but obviously WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete Vanity article created to support subject's immigration business. Lacks support to establish notability. reddogsix (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This Article should not be Deleted, Gurinder Bhatti is a very famous person and there are more articles about him, and many people follow him he have huge following on social Media This person article should be approved by wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suma9lm (talk • contribs) 21:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC) — Suma9lm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the promotional text in the article can't hide the fact that this is not a notable person. --bonadea contributions talk 10:50, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper above. MT Train^Discuss 15:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page is a proper one and good to stay in wikipedia, Gurinder Bhatti is quit popular to be in wikipedia page sandesh20p (talk) 03:42, 06 Janauary 2018 (UTC)— sandesh20kp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.

Don't Delete This person is very famous this page should not be deleted Lavanya789u (talk) 09:44, 06 Janauary 2018 (UTC)— Lavanya789u (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked as a sock.

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Rogers (psychologist)[edit]

Richard Rogers (psychologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient notability. Daask (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep h-index of 67, which is definitely high enough to meet WP:PROF criterion 1 (see also User:Czar/h-index). His status as a Regents Professor, his fellowship in the Society of Personality Assessment and the American Psychological Association's Divisions 12 and 41, and his receiving the Manfred S. Guttmacher Award, among other things, also indicate that he is clearly quite notable per WP:PROF criterion 2 at least. Nominator is reminded of WP:BEFORE. Everymorning (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per WP:PROF — passes on criterion 1 at least, and probably also 2 and 5. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- in addition to WP:PROF, the subject likely meets WP:AUTHOR with widely held books, which appear to be standard textbooks. For example, Fundamentals of Forensic Practice Mental Health and Criminal Law by Richard Rogers; Daniel W Shuman, is held by 650 libraries. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, could use expansion, but the publishers' of his books are known companies and has just enough to pass GNG. Kierzek (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:PROF - h-index and citation count make this obvious without even assessing anything else.Icewhiz (talk) 10:04, 31 December 2017 (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 with no prejudice to creation of a redirect or dab page as Uanfala suggests. ansh666 02:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absent referent[edit]

Absent referent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Googling "useful idea" produces many hits. So why don't we have a Wikipedia article about it, with sections In agriculture, In biology, In chemistry...? The reason is that the term just means "an idea that happens to be useful". Beyond that, nothing coherent can be said about it in general, and any attempt at an article will produce a haphazard mishmosh of unrelated stuff. Same story for "absent referent", a term that also has many ghits, but for which the only commonality in the various uses is the meaning of "a referent that happens to be not physically present". Much if not most of the article's content is original research, mostly in the form of synthesis. I've never seen the term used in a mathematical text.  --Lambiam 19:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deaf. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the basic GNG, and smells alot like OR to me. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete. Yes, the phrase "absent referent" can be used in any odd context to refer to a referent that is not present, but there does additionally exist a well-defined concept known by that name. I don't know if it's notable enough to ultimately have its own article. The one we currently have is absolutely hopeless, so we should at least turn it into a redirect to the article about the apparent originator of the term Carol J. Adams, where the concept is explained. An alternative would be to create a dab page listing that, as well as pointing to Failure to refer, which I reckon is the topic most relevantly representing the more generic uses of the phrase. – Uanfala (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As best as I can tell, the supposed connection to mathematics is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Accordingly, I cut it out. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Complicated. First, I think Xor's removal was totally justified, so I'm just looking at what's left now. Unafala brought up an interesting point about use of the term by Carol Adams. But apparently she didn't coin this term; in her own words, she "politicized" it. I honestly don't know if it would merit an article on its own (my guess is no, but I could be wrong), but there's nothing in there now, so it's kind of moot for the time being. A redirect wouldn't be terrible, but I'd say wait until the article gets deleted (if it gets deleted) before making a new one. The stuff about the Vietnam Veterans Memorial is bunk. That just leaves the bit about ASL. It does actually seem to be a technical term used in talking about sign language. Again, I don't know if it warrants its own article though, or if it could redirect to something else. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:25, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as ASL is concerned, the notion of absent referent is only meaningful in the context of indexing (pointing), a form of signing that is not even mentioned on Wikipedia. While interesting, the handling of space-absent versus space-present referents by indexing is at a deeper level of detail than the current treatment of other aspects of ASL.  --Lambiam 11:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. In that case, I'd probably just say go ahead and delete, and if anyone wanted to take a stab at the Carol Adams usage, they'd certainly be welcome. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 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 speedy Deleted as A7, G11. On December 30, 2017 RHaworth deleted V A ENERGY citing multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria A7, G11 (non-admin closure) ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

V A ENERGY[edit]

V A ENERGY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This appears at first glance to be an exemplary organisation. However, the references are clearly press releases and interviews with nothing about all the successes that should surely have followed such investment. It claims to have been around since 2011 but provides no evidence of the success of any of its many projects. To benefit applicants need to be a "member of V Adept Energy", yet nowhere is it clear how to become a member. This has all the hallmarks of a scam and the lack of refs does little to dispel that idea. It fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonprofit that hasn't gained much traction, or media attention. WP is not the place for promotion. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per Atsme. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources like The Hindu are provided, so I don't see the scam that @Velella: is talking about. It would be different if the article contained only primary sources, but The Hindu is far from primary.--Biografer (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

StepStone[edit]

StepStone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete No indications of notability. A run-of-the-mill company listing. Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or marketing. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —FormalDude^(talk) 00:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the company winning any awards or getting multiple, in-depth stories. So I concur with the statement that it is a run of the mill company that lacks notability. I don't see the situation changing either.Knox490 (talk) 01:44, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aries Dimaunahan[edit]

Aries Dimaunahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 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) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dino Daa[edit]

Dino Daa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Daa[edit]

Dennis Daa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for basketball players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jin Yuki[edit]

Jin Yuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet WP:PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. Sigificant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, tabloid coverage of another performer, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing even close to passing the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The lack of notable sources and the trajectory of her career suggest that notable sources will not be found to redeem the article. If someone wants to search for sources, be my guest. But I will not be doing so.Knox490 (talk)
• Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 02:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 05:03, 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) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Shaikh[edit]

Nadeem Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An advertorially toned BLP of a CEO of a nn company. Significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited to passing mentions, routine news about the company, WP:SPI and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account with three total edits. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO Safe My Edit (talk) 19:26, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hughes (basketball)[edit]

Tom Hughes (basketball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with no coverage beyond the WP:ROUTINE. He is a low level basketball coach, well below the standards of WP:NHOOPS. He was mostly a Kansas and Missouri local who coached at the high school, NAIA and minor pro levels and is now an assistant in another low level pro league. Nothing of significant depth from non-primary or non-local coverage, such as this KC-based article which the entire depth related to Hughes is "assisted on the bench by Tom Hughes, who coached the Salina Cagerz of the old USBL and most recently coached at Wentworth Military Academy." Yosemiter (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete well below the level of notability for basketball coaches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete- Fails WP:HOOPS as per nom.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:06, 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. under G6 (non-admin closure) L3X1 Happy2018! (distænt write) 15:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Fergusson-Stewart[edit]

Matthew Fergusson-Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

promotional article for someone whose job is promotion. I tend to look at such articles quite skeptically. There is very little here that indicates any actual notability, and a great deal that indicates a self-indulgent bio, ("Fergusson-Stewart honeymooned on Islay and named his firstborn daughter Islay."--which happens to be where the Scotch he promotes is produced) known to be written by a declared paid editor, who is by training a PR professional .I think this is one more instance that paid editors, declared or undeclared, regardless of their good intentions,are generally not likely to write a NPOV article. The references are PR, and that;s all there is. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a PR-driven page on a PR person, who is moreover 100% non notable. The award listed is extremely minor and also PR-driven. Basically, spam. I was very close to tagging it for SCD as A7 / G11. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the Huff Post article was by a contributor, not staff. I'm not seeing where this BLP passes even minimal GNG. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable PR person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Article is essentially a PR piece on a non-notable individual with no significant, independent coverage. Kb.au (talk) 13:37, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. An unremarkable guy doing a worthy but unremarkable job. (He has a remarkable resemblance to Max Headroom, but that's OR, I see no source that mentions it.) Maproom (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like a paid entry in somebody's big book of résumés. – Athaenara ✉ 23:15, 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 redirect to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner. maintaining the prior consensus at the RfC closed by Drmies on the article talk page. There is no evidence presented that the subject meets WP:GEOLAND - the feature is clearly a section of road (i.e. not natural) and all claims otherwise seem to be unsupported by the references given. ansh666 03:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Windy Corner, Isle of Man[edit]

Windy Corner, Isle of Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's time to delete this article which basically duplicates List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner. Attempts to #redirect have created disruption. There was consensus to MERGE but that hasn't worked, either. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously the place passes WP:GEOLAND, being a named feature. The list is no substitute because that is focussed only a particular race and the content in the list entry is negligible. For reader navigation purposes, the name Windy Corner is far more useful that some complex list title. Andrew D. (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a small corner on a mountain course and is already named as a feature in the main article of the course - List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Table row Windy Corner - just want to make sure participants in this AfD are aware of this fact. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whatever it is, putting it in a list with a bunch of other stuff does not improve matters for the reader who wants to find out about it. It's best kept simple so that Windy Corner takes the reader to a page about that place, with specific images, coordinates, topography and history, as we have here. If a list is needed, it should be brief, rather than some sprawling and confusing conglomerate. For example, I recently started a page about Hanging Sword Alley. It's not a big place but is notable and has some good history, which I shall be expanding on. Merging this into some gargantuan list of streets in London would not serve the reader so well. Andrew D. (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a single feature that is only notable as part of the mountain course where consensus said it should be redirected. Even WP:GEOLAND states If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. There are no books, maps, or multiple RS that focus only on this one feature. The sources include it as part of the bigger, more notable topic of the region or the course. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that this article was disruptively restored earlier today (with an edit summary of "removal of local consensus see BRD: No consensus on redirect, or target of redirect due to synthesis WP:SYN, original research WP:N and non-existent notability WP:N") having been redirected to List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course#Windy Corner as the result of a previous RfC (closed by User:Drmies on 23 February 2015‎), by the same editor who has done so multiple times in the past, against consensus - see its history, and its talk page. Note that User:11thmilestone, who previously kept restoring the page, was blocked as a sock puppet of the editor who made today's restoration. Note also that the page was stable as a redirect from 20 August 2016 until today. Accordingly, it should be redirected again, once the current content has been deleted. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read comments below, I believe that the history should indeed be kept. I'm also reminded of previous discussions, which showed that the article's claim to notability per WP:GEOLAND are bogus. Perhaps what is needed is an administrative injunction on Agljones to refrain from repeating this behaviour. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_named_corners_of_the_Snaefell_Mountain_Course#Windy_Corner per prior consensus. The target section already sufficiently covers the subject, which is not notable for a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, per previous RFC and all rational discussion over many years. If I had noticed the editor had restored the article I would have re-re-re-re-re-redirected it to the list-article which I opened, partly to provide reasonable resolution of this . I believe leaving edit history available in the redirect is helpful for future reference, to hold accountable the parties involved when they argue on and on, in the future, as is likely. Please note this diff in which I report that the main force involved had basically lied about what their key source said. They claimed the source established Windy Corner was an area of open moorland. They failed to respond adequately to requests they provide photocopy or other proof of what their sources said. I bought a copy of the main source and found that it absolutely did not say what it was claimed to say. Not to put a fine point on it, but they were caught redhanded in a lie. I similarly disbelieve the same editor's assertions now present in the current version/fabrication of the article. There is no merit to this article; it should be redirected and I don't think this AFD is even necessary. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate User:Andrew Davidson's view that a named feature with lots of coverage should be kept, but they are assuming that information currently in the article is accurate, when it is not. It is twisted rubbish. We need not assume good faith when it is not merited, as here. Here is another diff from AFD on similar article where it was established that claim of Site of Special Scientific Interest was a lie, too, when a different editor got the source. Now this Windy Corner article has a SSSI claim which I expect is false, too.

By the way, when looking at the main contributors contributions to look for this, I see that they have just recently made disruptive move, obviously controversial, of the Snaefell Mountain Course article, with edit summary claiming that it is not controversial. The sheer volume of shiite in AFDs, Talk pages, as well as put into the articles in mainspace related to Windy Corner and other Isle of Man race-course corners is cumulatively amazing and massively disruptive to Wikipedia. I would contribute evidence if someone would initiate a permanent topic ban from this area for the involved editor. --Doncram (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article passes WP:GEOLAND for notability as the location was previously occupied. Also WP:GEOROAD as the location is "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject," such as the Broderick publication in note (1) which does not actually define the article as " a small corner on a mountain course" as previously suggested by User:Atsme. The "corner" is much large than the editor describes as shown by the restricted safety areas in the road closing order for the 2017 Isle of Man TT races. The editor User:Atsme can either edit the article in this manner, although this would be original research WP:OP as the "corner" prior to 1922 was in a different position and actual a gate which was the boundary between two parcels of UK Government Crown land.

  The merger of the article and not a redirect was suggested by the User:Drmies. The merge of articles to the Snaefell Mountain Course has not worked as actually highlighted by the editor USER:doncram. There was no consensus of the redirect to the List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course and is a local consensus by the same editor USER:doncram. The two references used in the target line List of named corners of the_Snaefell Mountain_Course#Windy Corner as highlighted by USER:K.e.coffman, when used in this way are not encyclopaedic and represent a contradictory synthesis of sources not permitted by Wikipedia WP:SYN. As highlighted previously to editors, the List article does not possess a citation relative to the executive summary/lede paragraph one for interdependent notability WP:N and unlikely ever to do so. This is due to the term, "Snaefell Mountain Course" being a contemporary local historic newspaper and journalist term for the Highroads Course for automobile racing in the period 1911-1922. Again, Wikipedia does not allow synthesis of sources WP:SYN, sources are not notable in this context WP:N and the list article is an unnecessary repository for whimsical and flippant citations WP:V which is creating circular reporting problems. WP:CITOGEN In respect to large article lists, Wikipedia writes that "...editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles" WP:LSTN Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.

  Comment The USER:doncram along with another editor has received a final warning from the same editor User:Drmies for repeating the use of "laundry lists," spurious Single purpose Account and Conflict of Interest claims and disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by removing edits from the Isle of Man TT races article (there is no issue of "whitewashing") as the editor USER:doncram disliked the edits (it is required by Wikipedia that reliable sources represent majority views and also represent significant minority views WP:BIAS, WP:BURDEN.) The editor USER:doncram has also repeatedly vandalised two other other articles with spurious objections, in particular removing any citation mentioning the word "moorland" and replaced a title line for a BRD discussion to avoid BRD process. Despite misunderstanding amongst editors, the editor USER:doncram has also asked Wikipedia to reinstate the Ginger Hall article after it was deleted (see talk page:Windy Corner.) The editor USER:doncram has also used the Request for Closure to prematurely closed down a copyright enquiry in regard to the same List Article (now either archive, suppressed or both) and despite this, Jimmy Wales and Wikipedia is very clear that for copyright in non-US countries has to be observed.

  The editor USER:doncram has never historically given an alternative explanation or definition for the heath and heather moorland, despite the numerous references in secondary sources (see talk pages for Windy Corner, Keppel Gate and Brandywell articles) and in this edit uses the term "moorland" [[1]]. The editor USER:doncram has also mentioned a publication and the citation was explained in this edit on the Windy Corner talk page [[2]]. The publication writes on page 81 or page 59 depending on the version;- "...Cross the style and enter the "mountain land"...." Where is this style ? It is actually the most southerly boundary of the area of Slieau Lhoost which was purchased in 1933 as shown in the revised article. It is the same area which is an ASSI as defined by a "SC3781 A portion of the south western slope of Slieau Ree" and the same author writes about "heather and ling" which only grow on acidic moorland soil and is also the same moorland as referred to be in this same edit [[3]]. The report Habit Survey 1991, gives an 'arbitrarily' moorland definition as peat soil being greater than 25cm 50cm. The soil depth of peat in this areas is greater than 50cm which qualifies for the definition of "moorland" and in the area of Beinn-y-Phott it is greater than 3 metres.

  In regard to other comments it is not clear what the editor is referring too. In the Keppel Gate article a recent publication for 2017 stated that R.O Clark crashed at the "33rd Milestone." For the other article, the 2017 Isle of Man TT Race Regulations clearly states "Isle of Man TT Mountain Circuit" and not "Snaefell Mountain Course." agljones(talk)11:27, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Drmies Please can you comment on the claims made about you above; specifically i) whether a redirect was the intention of your close of the RfC and ii) your alleged warning to other editors, and its bearing on this AfD? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, are you asking me to read through agljones's comments? I may need some more champagne for that. What I was suggesting to Atsme was that an admin (such as me) could consider restoring the RfC-endorsed merge ("merge" automatically involves a redirect...). If I was warning anyone, it would certainly be the editor who made this edit--not Doncram, who on multiple occasions reverted that disruptive reinstatement of all that content. One would think that after being blocked for creating a sock to make just these edits, they'd stop doing that. Anyway, if this AfD somehow closes as "keep" (I would find that strange, given the lack of arguments put forward by Andrew Davidson and Aunva6), ... no I don't see how this will close as "keep". Drmies (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as before. It's not a geographic feature, it's just one of many turns on a road racing course. Details about the road and the land nearby doesn't make it worth an article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GEOLAND and there is far too much topic-specific content to redirect. --Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tis not. There is no content on the page worth keeping. It is all nonsense; it is false assertions that the corner is an area of moorland etc. It is not. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:GEOLAND says natural features can be notable. This is an area of heathland which is a natural feature and the refs look ok. The RFC closed as no consensus which defaults to keep - the article should not have been redirected. Szzuk (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC was in 2014 and was overridden by the Feb 2015 RfC which was closed as merge by Drmies. The RfC was ignored and the #redirect reverted. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my own vote. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The feature is a col which is a geographical feature as described in another disputed publication on page 116. The peat soil is of depth much great than the 'arbitrarily' soil definition of 25 cm 50cm depth which makes it a moorland, a geographic feature. The citations in the article for notability define the area prior to the "road racing course" and a motor-cycle scrambles course also existed on the site which is greater than just a "small corner on a mountain course." agljones(talk)19:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To the couple good faith editors who have read the page and think it is about a noteworthy geographic feature, could you please you yourself consult and cite any source which says it is an area of open moorland or whatever. It has been debated at length at the talk page and in previous RFC and in long, slow edit war. IMHO it is crap, similar to automatic assertions along similar lines for other Isle of Man racing course stuff over many years. What matters is GNG. Please be specific about what source says what that you believe. Wikipedia is not a valid source, you can't just rely upon this article as the source for what you believe. It is all contended, controversial, fraudulent. :) --Doncram (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the clarification for other editors, in respect to the comment by edit [4] of 20:43, 30 December 2017 by editor User:Atsme ;- the List article is not the ".....main article of the course." If the editors did read all the talk page comments, then there is no censuses in the redirect to the List article over the "merge" to the "Snaefell Mountain Course" article. After a good faith attempt to resolve the long outstanding issue of independent notability WP:N issues of Circular reporting (feedback loop) and Confirmation Bias for the "Snaefell Mountain Course" article, this main article has now been renamed Mountain Course (motorcycle racing) by another editor, ignoring the common name of Isle of Man TT Mountain Course or TT CourseWP:COMMONNAME. The main article is the now this article "Mountain Course (motorcycle racing)" and has never been the List article. Any editor that has directed or redirected this article to List article has been disruptive. The revised article of edit of 16:47, 30 December 2017 [5] has reverted approximately to the 'status quo' of an open ended set of remarks by the same editor User:Drmies in regard to the edit (RfC) of 18:11, 23 February 2015 [6]. agljones(talk)20:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comment. The name is NOT Isle of Man TT Mountain course, and never has been. I have voluntarily abstained from WP for some months, partly due to one hostile editor (elsewhere) and to demonstrate that no admin has any block-threat sanction against me regarding WP:OUTing and WP:HOUNDing (I can and will 'walk away'); this latter aspect is, however (here and here) preventing me from correctly top-templating (only to be used with the prior sanction of an admin???). Also articles authored by Agljones using sources not available to the public when autopatrolled (removed by Callanecc at sock-unblock, July 2015). Digest my edit summary, then note the source retro-added in the next change, 6 years after the actual article content. My claims since 2015 (roughly co-incident with the bureaucrat (knowingly) removing CoI content, after repeated attempts by IP addresses in violation of Callanecc's unblock requirement) are not spurious.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Editors would advise that the USER:doncram should refer back to the relevant Brandywell, Isle of Man# talk:page in respect to the issue of citations and verifiability WP:V and editors should not use spurious COI claims on these various talk pages to block discussion, specifically after being given a final warning.

The objections from Editor User:doncram may be considered as another “laundry list” which is again very short on evidence. In regard to the land purchase in 1933 from the UK Crown and Treasury in the article, the 1984 Forestry Act in respect to granting public access refers to “….uncultivated mountain or moorland….” to distinguish different types of land use above the 250 metre map contour ‘Mountain Line.’ The status of WP:GEOLAND is in respect to being previously occupied and its “legal status” as a recognised place may be identified by the 2016 Isle of Man TT Road Closing order. It would be also incorrect to infer (ie Original Research WP:OP) that this section of the original turf road (c 1600) is the same as current A18 Snaefell Mountain Road as the “….small corner….” only dates from 1910/1922 (1933/35) as it is the most extensively modified section of the 'course.' agljones(talk)22:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Again, editors may advise that not to either disrupt or block discussions with “laundry lists” with little or no evidence which may be seen as ‘supermarket shopping.’

The 2017 Isle of Man TT Regulations refer to the “COURSE” as the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Mountain Circuit.” The 1958 Isle of Man TT Regulations also refer to the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Mountain Circuit” and editors would again advise to refer to the appropriate BRD discussion. The 2016 Road Racing Act refers to the “Tourist Trophy Mountain Course” and the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy motorcycle races.” The UK newspaper “Daily Express,” with a large national circulation refers to the “Isle of Man Tourist Trophy Mountain Course” on page 38, Friday 7th September 1979 which passes the process of independent notability WP:N, as a secondary source independent of the subject for this article.

The term “Snaefell Mountain Course” in the List Article is difficult to define or locate and the very small number of sources for this term and are as Wikipedia describes as “trivial,” contradictory or the result of Circular reporting. The term has not attracted reporting over a long period compared to “Isle of Man TT Mountain Course” WP:SUSTAINED. The Windy Corner, Isle of Man has attracted attention over a long period of time in publications due to its connection with the Isle of Man TT races, the Isle of Man TT Mountain Course and as recently as May 2017, again the subject is found in an Isle of Man walking guide.agljones(talk)19:55, 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) 19:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Exec[edit]

Ivy Exec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An advertorially toned page for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; I'm seeing a lot of self-promotion instead such as this piece by the company CEO: [7]. The article is cited to passing mentions, PR materials, oline directories, and WP:SPIP sources. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this could be the poster article for promotional and WP:NOT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Corporate spam, fails WP:SPIP, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:16, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commotio (Oxford-based choir)[edit]

Commotio (Oxford-based choir) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability for this Oxford choir. The references seem to be about demonstrating that individual soloists worked with the choir or sold CDs. Nothing here speaks of notability. Searches reveal nothing better. There are very many choirs in Oxford, many of a high standard, so just being an Oxford choir doesn't make for notability. A little recent COI editing probably hasn't helped. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:N (music). ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:56, 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 Quality Control: Control the Streets Volume 1. ansh666 02:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She for Keeps[edit]

She for Keeps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage for separate article. ─ 1997kB 16:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N (music) ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Quality Control: Control the Streets Volume 1, the song's parent album. There are a few blurbs on the song - [8][9][10] - but I don't think that the coverage is sufficiently in-depth to warrant a standalone article at this time.  gongshow  talk  23:17, 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. ansh666 02:57, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EarthLab[edit]

EarthLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced, tagged for cleanup since 2008, I'm not finding much on google, not certain of notability RJFJR (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's certainly in a poor state. The website is now used by a Japanese insurance group; Earthlab.com of Kirkland, Washington is said on Facebook to be an art gallery. It looks to me as if the organisation is now dead, so the question is whether it was notable at the time back in 2007-8 (once notable, always notable). The "Earth Conservation Profile" was launched in 2007 and seems to have made a splash back then which might be notable, but perhaps that makes the article a WP:COATRACK for the ECP. There are sources to prove it was a nonprofit and to illustrate its activities, but insufficient to show notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:GNG with flying colors. I can't find any sources anywhere. Being that the links at the bottom go somewhere else, I don'y see how this even passes WP:V--Rusf10 (talk) 17:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable. I see "Earth Lab"s at University of Colorado and University of Washington which are different. Their own website no longer is functional, there are no references in the article, and I can't tell what this group used to be. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:04, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret G. Marucci[edit]

Margaret G. Marucci (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

County freeholder does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Also fails WP:GNG, there is no substantial coverage and one of the sources is a marriage announcement. Her husband is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James W. Kelly Jr.. Rusf10 (talk) 15:44, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep after improvements to the article. ansh666 03:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Ruotolo[edit]

Andrew K. Ruotolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. County prosecutor is not a notable position. Also unsuccessful candidate for assembly. Only source is an obituary. Other sources that I were able to find only had routine coverage. They were mostly stories about crime, that mention him or quoted him. Rusf10 (talk) 15:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 18:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while a few country prosecutors are notable (Kym Worthy is a probably example), the coverage of Ruotolo for such is not enough to show notability, and the failed candidacy for the state legislature is clearly not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the refs meet the GNG easily, the failed candidacy as a disqualifier for notability is an example, once again, of the strawman fallacy. No one is claiming that is why he is notable. --RAN (talk) 04:13, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The scope and breadth of sources about his role as county prosecutor developing a response to the car-theft epidemic of his era is what establishes his notability. He's not notable per se as a county prosecutor or as a failed politician; he's notable because reliable and verifiable sources document his efforts and successes as prosecutor. Kudos to RAN for his efforts to improve and expand the article, a sharp contrast to do-nothing deletionism. Alansohn (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Echo the above to say kudos to RAN.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  WP:HEY.  Unscintillating (talk) 09:38, 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. Killiondude (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Magic[edit]

Inside Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable blog. No significant mentions in other sources PriceDL (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:EVERYTHING Safe My Edit (talk) 19:29, 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 speedy keep. as per sources provided, Thanks all. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 14:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Ellis[edit]

Jesse Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable engineer, Fails GNG –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable engineer, passing the GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying He passes GNG doesn't mean a thing, Sources would help. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An engineer of national and local importance. Bmcln1 (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If he was of importance than you'd kindly provide sources, If he's indeed notable then I'm more than happy to close but so far I'm finding nothing on him, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's a 96-page book about him: Jesse Ellis and the Maidstone Wagons. Andrew D. (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable engineer, passing the GNG. Came by a deletion on the Maidstone page. The deleter said he wanted a stub and it was easy to do. If this is deleted- it proves my point- stub creation is not 'easy'. The user has tried his best and provided a full link- that can be expanded to two WP:RSs. A cursory glance at Grace- shows notability, and it is useful to build up the articles on Maidstone's industrial base and get away from the stereotype Garden of England. I would be interested if an experienced boiler make could expand here on his fire-tubes. Notability does depend on sources not the engineers ability. I googled [11] which goes into detail on the Maidstone explosion, and Ellis innovative design of a steam truck allegedly taken up by Foden. http://steamwagon.com/books.htm advertises a R.A.Whitehead book Jesse Ellis and the Maidstone Wagons 84 pages. And then it is said he was a haulage contractor- ie Entrepreneur. Member of the RAC and involved in the abolition of the The Locomotive Act 1865 (Red Flag Act). ClemRutter (talk) 14:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sesame Street crew[edit]

List of Sesame Street crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT, None of those in the article are linked and the entire article is unsourced. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with a very minimal merge. This is almost pure listcruft and we have had it since 2005! The only part that jumps out at me as salvageable would be to take the lists of writers and directors, remove all the unlinked entries, remove all the redlinked entries, remove any entries that link to the wrong people, remove any entries which point at articles that don't mention Sesame Street, and then then collapse each of these reduced lists down to a single sentence in the main article with the form "Notable writers/producers include...". The rest belongs on IMDB, which the main article already links to. There is no need to have it in Wikipedia too. If there are any other old articles like this which have gone unnoticed for years then they should all suffer the same fate. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Very few of the names pass WP:BLP. Ajf773 (talk) 20:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems to be an example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE —FormalDude^(talk) 00:47, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Assistant camera operators? Secretaries? Give me a break. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear listcruft. Sro23 (talk) 02:53, 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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Father Ernetti's Chronovisor[edit]

Father Ernetti's Chronovisor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An ip messed up the nom; gave a rationale of deletion because it is a conspiracy theory book with little more notability than Cumbey's Anti-Christ claim against Solona Seems to fail WP:NBOOKS, there's no coverage on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymiss<span- -style="color:#FDB927;">fortune} 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major plot element in Steve White's Gods of Dawn, ISBN 978-1-4814-8257-8.

• Delete I cannot believe that this book promoting a FRINGE theory and being the alleged biography related to such is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bizarre book. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.184.16 (talk) 01:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.236.184.16 (talk) 01:09, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Killiondude (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tehreek e Islami[edit]

Tehreek e Islami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing actually. Maybe redirect to Jamaat-e-Islami. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Akif Saeed[edit]

Hafiz Akif Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No real coverage for him. Fails WP:GNG. Alternate is to redirect. Störm (talk) 10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Entirely fails to satisfy Wikipedia notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 11:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: disqualified for Wikipedia notability Safe My Edit (talk) 19:31, 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. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Elena Ibañez[edit]

Maria Elena Ibañez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

originally written as a paid promotional article with very borderline notability  ; the subsequent legal involvement does not make her more notable. (I do admit to a certain grim satisfaction to how the promotionalism turned out,but it's still unfair to have the article) DGG ( talk ) 02:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 02:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. I don't think her legal problems pass WP:CRIME.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on balance. I agree it's borderline and the COI notice should remain in place regardless. Deb (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete WIkipedia is not a place for self-promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- promo 'cruft on a non notable person. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:53, 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 Seth Edulji Dinshaw#Family. Any applicable material (i.e. not promotional) can be merged from history. ansh666 03:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Framroze Edulji Dinshaw[edit]

Framroze Edulji Dinshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Being landowner doesn't mean you are notable. Going in detail of everything from their ventures to philanthropy of their family, he is at least not notable as other two are. No significant coverage to pass WP:ANYBIO. Started by User talk:Waddington3. Störm (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:58, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Non-notable individual fails WP:ANYBIO to have an individual article. Suggested to merge with Seth_Edulji_Dinshaw Hagennos (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & redirect name only to Seth_Edulji_Dinshaw#Family where the subject is already discussed in sufficient detail. No need to preserve the article history as it's mostly promo 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARY Group[edit]

ARY Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I initially thought it is actually ARY Digital Network but was wrong because it is separate. When I tried to improve, nothing significant was found. Almost all is of primary importance without passing WP:CORPDEPTH. WP is not indiscriminate collection of links or companies. Either there should be significant coverage with name "ARY Group" or should fail WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found. Störm (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, no indications of notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 16:10, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROMO Safe My Edit (talk) 19:34, 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 Darwin (operating system)#Derived projects as a reasonable search term. ansh666 03:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GNU-Darwin[edit]

GNU-Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a long standing page for what seems to be a non-notable vanity project with no reliable sources to speak of. No coverage anywhere else that I can find except for press releases and an OSNews article written by the guy who started the project, which I assume all count as primary sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Darwin (operating system)#Derivatives section. This article just doesn't seem like it'll ever be anything greater than a stub. Nuke (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What can be merged though? There is nothing here that can be attributed to anything except Primary Sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep [12] [13] and [14] in addition to the OS News source you mentioned. —cnzx 21:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Love that second source. "I tried this thing, it didn't work, but it exists." AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently being a "good" piece of software is now also a prerequisite for having an article? —cnzx 02:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect. Of the links provided above, the first one has very limited coverage, the second one is a blog post and thus probably inadmissible, and the third one is a passing mention which only provides trivial coverage.--greenrd (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non notable and all references primary. Even though it has been suggested to be merged into Darvin lack of references make this a candidate for deletion. Hagennos (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The lack of notable sources and the material in the article itself would appear to indicate that it is a vanity project with limited public support. I don't see further research for sources redeeming the article from it being deleted.Knox490 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither the article nor a search on Google could bring up any independent sources covering this product in any meaningful way. As the nom states, what info there is online seems to have published by the software creator. Does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT. Happy to see a redirect if there's an appropriate page to send it to. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment German "Linux Magazin" magazine published solid looking article about GNU-Darwin in 2001/04 issue (monthly column by Georg C. F. Greve): [15]. Other than that, I found only short news (heise.de, pro-linux.de, root.cz etc.). Pavlor (talk) 10:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Darwin (operating system)#Other derived projects as this is ultimately a non-Apple version of Darwin and brief mention in the main article is appropriate. Due to the lack of sources, it would be hard to actually merge content from here. Personally I would restrict any description on the main article to 2 sentences or less.--DreamLinker (talk) 05:03, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to clarify. This is not a non-Apple version of Darwin. This is the FreeBSD packaging system (created by someone else) that was ported to run on Darwin. That may or may not work. That doesn't seem to have any support. That doesn't seem to have been updated for years. That doesn't seem to have been worked on in years. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have pointed to this in the start. Back in 2011 people are posting to their discussion forum asking for help because ports don't compile and the lead developer is responding with "Development is on hiatus until replacements for the proprietary drivers can be found" "Many of the ports will require much hacking. We are not distributing changes until replacements for the proprietary drivers can be found." and that's pretty much the last genuine activity on the discussion forums (or mailing lists barring spam emails). https://sourceforge.net/p/gnu-darwin/discussion/49372/thread/c448f3b5/ AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:21, 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. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Version[edit]

Dream Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minimal RS coverage exists to fail A7 but I cannot find any coverage that is sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:BAND. reddogsix (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Some coverage found: Rolling Stone, Radio One Chicago, webzine, The Revue. --Michig (talk) 07:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete There are some reviews of their work, but I don't think that's enough to meet WP:GNG. If it is, please let me know. I have no doubt that WP:NBAND is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They have not passed any criteria of WP:BAND; what else can you say about them apart from they exist and have released some music that hasn't even charted. While you could scramble enough sources together to verify the article, being mentioned along side lots of other bands and a couple of reviews hear and there from niche publications (and using volunteers in Spill Magazine's & The Revue's case) is not really significant coverage. Mattg82 (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Pharaoh[edit]

Kid Pharaoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Over the top self promotion ffor non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Award is not major and is not for him. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]