< 23 December	25 December >

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:Nick under criteria A7 and G12. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 02:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Jimmy

[edit]

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

No citations, article written like an essay. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Lody

[edit]

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

Upon further review, the biographical information in the article is entirely uncited, all the citations are for the music. Combined with the apparent absence of notability and I think the article lacks the legs to stand on Wikipedia, so here we are. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:44, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. I found a few interviews like this, but no secondary sources needed to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines. Lepricavark (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 23:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (video game)

[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is a non-notable mobile game. There are no sources currently in the article and there is very little coverage in a Google search. -KAP03 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to be rewritten, but there's coverage available: [1] from SocialTimes, [2] from Pocket Gamer, [3] from Slide to Play, [4] from Gamezebo, and [5] from GameSpot. The prior four are all vetted by WP:VG/RS. The first is a blog hosted by Adweek. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep with the sources in the article and listed above, especially GameSpot's one (as a generalist VG source and not a mobile-specific one). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use more/better sources but game meets notability guidelines (has over 50 million downloads on Android alone). Spilia4 (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate we have coverage from Eurogamer and CNET. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Huawei P9. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huawei P9 lite

[edit]

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

No references. No substantive content. Not enough information to be WP:G11, but just as useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Huawei P9 if it has no independent notability, and, if that also has no independent notability, merge to Huawei, which is obviously notable. Whatever happens deletion is not the appropriate action per WP:ATD-M. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge' as suggested. That could be done without coming here, because it's obvious. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect - There really nothing to merge other than some bare specs, and they're not even properly referenced. - Mr X 19:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Huawei P9. Hardly anything worth merging. Adam9007 (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge anything useful into Huawei P9. It's not a notable product. Peacock (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2016 (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 Kdegames#Arcade. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 22:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kolf (video game)

[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG, as tagged since March 2009. The article was recently deprodded for having a previous prod 10 years ago. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to kdegames. Sources like this book prove that it exists, but that's not enough to establish notability. Looking through the Google Books results, the notable topic here is the kdegames collection, not the individual games in it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list mention at kdegames. The article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources (?) as written, or at least enough to build a full article. czar 18:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudodragon

[edit]

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if in-universe things do not deserve articles. I don't expect pseudodragons to have much impact on the real world.BayShrimp (talk) 22:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 05:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Dragons in D&D are surely notable (indeed, they're iconic) and we can reasonably cover pseudodragons as a part of that. This means that pseudodragons perhaps warrant more than an index entry. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters. If I'm remembering correctly, Pesudodragons aren't actually a type of dragon, so merging to the main dragon article would be a bit odd. But, if other people agree that is the more appropriate merge target, then I wouldn't really have an objection. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I mostly played in 3.0 and 3.5, and they were dragons back then. I do note that there's a passing mention of them in the article on dragons in D&D currently. I'm certainly not attached to my suggestion; I'm happy for an alternative merge target if that's preferred. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I'm thinking of the 2nd Edition AD&D Monstrous Manual, where they were listed as a "Dragonet" alongside several other "not-quite-a-dragon" monsters. But, hey, if other versions considered them to be a full dragon, then I'm all for using the Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) article as the merge target! 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've never really been into D&D so I don't know which index it belongs in, assuming this anonymous IP is correct, but if it's something within the D&D Universe, it belongs there. I've never thought in-universe subjects automatically deserve to be deleted. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Greyhawk characters. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 18:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Dukes of Aaqa

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to List of Greyhawk characters. BOZ (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk characters as suggest above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Greyhawk characters. No reliable sources to suggest any sort of notability. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Casey

[edit]

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

Casey is only noticed for being Miss Virginia USA. This in and of itself is not enough to make someone notable. The sourcing is not there to pass the general notability guidelines. I did additional sources. All the coverage I found was from publications in Virginia, and not even from the top papers in the state. a good part of it was from publications connected with the college she went to. I did find a picture of her in a bikini with a caption saying she was a contestant in the Miss USA pageant from the Orlando Sentinel, but that was not in any way substantive coverage, saying nothing about her. There is just no coverage of her beyond the Miss USA competition. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability beyond the state contests.—CaroleHenson (talk) 00:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- insufficient claim to notability with a state-level pageant win. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo Exclusive

[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur that there is little evidence of notability; no evidence given of extensive coverage in independent reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize to the page creator for incorrectly stating that they removed the CSD tag. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they did, but they were before mine. Adam9007 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(add to my comment).....on the most recent occasion today. 331dot (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Still feel the same way. Please sign your posts with ~~~~ so we know you wrote them. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for new users to successfully write an article on their very first try. Very few people are able to. If you want more time to work on it, it can be moved to Draft space or your personal Sandbox for you to work on it further and then submit it for consideration. The AFD message cannot be removed until this discussion is concluded. I would ask you if you are associated with this website in any way(do you work for them). 331dot (talk) 23:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also highly recommend that you review the notability guidelines here to understand what is considered notable for websites, as well as what reliable sources are. 331dot (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2016 (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 some additional sourcing, and clean up work, the valid !keep rationales indicate the article now passes our standards for notability. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Jenkins (singer/songwriter)

[edit]

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)).

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

Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedy deletion. Scorpion293 (talk) 21:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added albums and sources. Not sure what you want more? [User: Sacha Kay]

You need to add WP:RS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sacha Kay's only edits have come as part of this topic, and they have cast five keep !votes. Four have been crossed out. KaisaL (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - This article meets none of the requirements for speedy deletion. Needs some fleshing out, not nuking. K_arunamon ^Talk 04:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear: external links to a "Famous Birthdays" site, and iTunes and Napster music catalogues are not reliable sources. Nothing has been added to the article that's of any use at all in meeting our minimum requirements for BLP referencing. That said, a Gnews search does indicate that there are reliable sources out there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ User has already added a !vote - Added the bandonjenkins.com website as a reference, a book (where he's describes as red dirt artist) and allmusic.com. Really. It would be nice to get some possitive feedback to tweak this page the right way. First time I had to create an entire page. Brandon Jenkins is a very well-known Texas Country / Red Dirt artist. And his Wiki-page had been taken over by a sportsman (for everywhere in the red dirt / texas country wiki pages, the Brandon Jenkins link is pointing to the sportsman, instead of the singer/songwriter). Help would be appreciated. Instead I'm now in a constant struggle against deletion. Thanks. Sacha Kay 26 December 2016 12:52
Delete This entry reads like a promotional blurb, and lists no sources to establish notability per our criteria of significant coverage. To be listed in Reverb Nation, Napster, All Music, i-tunes, etc. convey only existence, not significance or notability. Same thing with the subjects own website. Roughstock is an unknown source to me, but upon investigation it appears to be a site of questionable editorial oversight that solicits agencies wishing to promote their artists . (See: http://www.roughstock.com/contact-us) As for user Sacha Kay request for help, quite simply this entry needs sources that show independent, third party, objective recognition in significant number per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines . If they exist (and user Shawn in Montreal indicates that they do), please cite them, and use them (rather than promotional verbiage) to craft the content of the article. I’ll gladly change my vote with proper references and sourcing. Best wishes. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've read millions of articles on Wiki on how to create a page, including the notability page. And it's still not very clear to me. Would the book that I've found information in be notable? What else would be notable? Since here you basically say that everything I can find about Brandon Jenkins is NOT notable? Where to find notable information? Sacha Kay 12:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ User has already added a !vote Removed all the "promotional blurb" that I found on "non-notable websites". Only left information that I found in a book, on the website of a record label and the Texas Music Chart website (wayback machine, for the chart no longer exists). Sacha Kay 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ User has already added a !vote Added some more information found in The Oklahoman, No Depression (The Journal of Roots Music) and Red Dirt Nation. Sacha Kay 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only spurious and thin references so not close to meeting the criteria. KaisaL (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ User has already added a !vote And why the heck would the references be spurious?!? It's ridiculous to insinuate that The Oklahoman, No Depression, MTV and Red Dirt Nation are unreal. Just because you don't know things, doesn't justify to call them fake. Why is everyone so opposed to get this page on a REAL and EXISTING singer-songwriter from Oklahoma and Texas validated? I can give of list of at least a 100 living person pages that aren't as referenced as this one, from people less "important" than Brandon Jenkins. I'm done with this. Really. Too bad that Wikipedia seems to have turned into this bureaucratic insanity where people who used to troll the forums now find an outlet for their frustrations. And yes. I'm sorry to sound like this (especially for the ONE person who actually did try to help me), but I'm really very disappointed. I am in no way affiliated with Brandon Jenkins, I just felt sorry for him to see that he's one of the most important singers of his genre and that the links on the Wikipedia-pages where he is mentioned are linking to some sportsman. And if this message gets me banned from editing (because I'm sure that telling the truth is somewhere in regulations too), then so be it. I'm done. [[User:Sacha_Kay|Sacha Kay] 10:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep I wonder why there can be any discussion at all: an important Texan songwriter who has published several albums – so? Who would delete Guy Clark? --Generalslocum (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Generalslocum (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.

Keep Subject is a significant regional artist with international following, worthy of notice. Page should be candidate for Improvement not Deletion, especially since edits are not coming from subject or their promotional people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.157.113.27 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is the only edit by the above IP address. KaisaL (talk) 15:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin We appear to have some cases of WP:MEAT toward the end of this AFD, old accounts coming back for the first time in a while and so on, after Sacha Kay's long comment. I believe that either canvassing or alternate accounts is the cause. Sacha Kay has also voted keep no less than five times, so I've struck out four of them. A WP:COI is highly likely. All of this should be considered as part of the close. KaisaL (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep New entry compares favorably to other existing articles in series, e.g. Stoney_LaRue. Entry is certainly more notable than the main entry for an anonymous football player. Needs improvement, but so do we all. I would note that editors' attacks on a new author smacks of Wikibullying. Reminds me why I haven't edited anything in awhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JC Shepard (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you just happened to come back after 21 months to vote on an AFD by chance? The canvassing and meatpuppet usage on show actually works against establishing a consensus to keep this article, given that at one point it actually seemed relatively balanced from both sides, but now seems like not one person has suggested to keep this article for good reasons. There's a selection of poor, thin sources, and if that's all that can be found for a 20-year career then it's obvious that this musician has no notability outside of local circles. Arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS don't help, either. KaisaL (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please specify which one of the sources you consider "poor and thin" @KaisaL:? And really, just because you don't know Brandon Jenkins and you don't seem to like new editors, doesn't justify your vendetta against this article.

All of them, honestly. They're either local, blog-sized titles, or passing mentions (i.e. not substantial coverage) in other titles that still wouldn't count as reliable sources. The MTV link is the only one in a potentially reliable source, but the page is in fact an aggregation of metadata, not MTV running a feature. The biography on MTV comes from Rovi, which wouldn't confer notability. So in short, there's not one source that backs up any claim that Brandon is significant. I'll ignore the rhetoric about vendettas, given I only came back here after Sacha Kay protested on my talk page about my original comment. KaisaL (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Local (Texas, Oklahoma and Tennessee: about 30 million people living there), yes I agree. Sorry about my misinterpretation of "significance". And it's understandable that you've mistaken No Depression for a blog. It's not very known amongst people who only know highly promoted popular music. Thanks for admitting you came here on a personal vendetta after I've left you a message on your page. I appreciate that, @KaisaL:. (Sacha Kay (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

No_Depression_(magazine) would be considered a definitive reference on Roots music--a reliable source anyway. Then again, I've contributed to their website, and apparently user-contributed websites can't be a trusted source.(JC Shepard (talk)

I would like to thank ::@KaisaL: to let me know (me, a new editor) that it's not necessary to put "KEEP" in front of every response, I didn't know that. Thanks for striking them through and teaching me this.
Comment for closing admin Yes. I have put the insanity of this discussion about a legit artist on my FB page. I didn't know it was not allowed to do so. I've deleted it. I would like to point out that I do not have alternate accounts and after all this, I might just be deleting the one account that I actually do have. KaisaL seems to be on a personal vendetta of some sort. I am in no way "interested" in Brandon Jenkins. I'm just an Americana music maven (or so I've been called) who wants to see talented independant artists have their own Wikipedia page. Especially the ones who have 16 albums on their track record. Fact is, there are more people voting "KEEP" than "DELETE" and if the closing admin decides that the page should be deleted, I would like to see the motivation and reasons why this article wasn't up to regulation.

Hello,Sacha Kay , I got your messages. I am on the road working this week and don't have time to give this much thought or time. In general, though, if you can find independent, third party coverage of this subject in significant quantity it may have a hope of being saved. So far, unfortunately, what has been cited is probably not enough to qualify for an encyclopedic entry. Don't get discouraged if the article gets deleted. If the subject is indeed notable then you can spend more time finding the necessary sources that will make this page acceptable by redoing it before resubmitting. Best of luck. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply User:ShelbyMarion. Of course I'll get discouraged if this article gets deleted. There's a lot of information out there on his SONGS (3 million listeners to "Feet don't touch the ground" and "Finger on the trigger" on Spotify), but, as it usually goes, there's not much in the news about the writers of the songs or independant artists, for all that matters. It would be such a pity if the content on Wikipedia depends on "national third party coverage" and Brandon Jenkins is thus to be considered as non-notable and local (with 16,000 Twitter and FB followers, 16 records and almost constantly songs in the Texas music charts), only because he lives more for music than for promotion. All information in the article is verifiable by solid, established third parties (eventhough not nationally known). Isn't that the goal?(Sacha Kay (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Update: Hello, I'm the editor who proposed the deletion of this article. I have edited the article and removed unreliable sources, which includes a user-generated MTV profile, and news blogs with no authority. Based on the sources listed now, this article is a borderline keep. There are coverage from the Dallas Observer, Austin Chronicle that do establish credibility towards the subject. However, I'm not sure whether it may be TOO SOON; my final decision is to keep or merge with an article pertaining to "Red Dirt Music". Scorpion293 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't bang the drum too much further on this, as it's likely to be new commenters that decide the fate of this article, but the Dallas Observer, The Austin Chronicle and Lubbock Avalanche-Journal are all local or regional titles. While their reliability could be deemed more so than the average source (by virtue of having editorial oversight as newspapers), they still don't establish wider notability. This is an artist that's been around since 1994, so not only is it highly unlikely that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON, it's also very concerning that these sources are all that could be found. A musician with a 20+ year career should have more than a handful of regional newspapers to go off. Where are their Billboard album chart hits, the features in major music titles? These are the reasons that I lean toward deletion, there should be far more for a musician with this tenure of activity. KaisaL (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for what you've done to the article, User:Scorpion293 and thanks for keeping an open mind. (Sacha Kay (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@KaisaL:, may I kinldy suggest deletion of all artists from 40 European countries? For those are all having a population of less than 20 million and are thus to be considered regional and local?

Just to satisfy User:KaisaL: I've added information from an interview by the French Association of Country Music (be aware, their website actually does look like a blog).(Sacha Kay (talk) 13:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I think that the article definitely needs help to bring it up to a better quality, but it's more to do with the fact that the article needs help vs. an issue of notability. I am going to work on the page and improve it. I wish that the approach was not quite so punitive for enthusiastic editors who need help versus what I'm seeing on this AfD. Pedagogy is the more effective method versus all of this here.... I'm not surprised, just disappointed. Another reason to not use AfD x 1 million. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, User:BrillLyle. Nice to "hear" a kind voice. The whole creating of an article procedure made me feel like Don Quixote so far. Your message means a lot.(Sacha Kay (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Okay I've done a significant amount of work on this article. It now has 30 citations, and quite frankly, due to the prolific nature of Jenkins' work and the heavy regional press coverage reflecting his work within the country music genre, I don't think I have really even scratched the surface on this musical artist. I would request that the tag be removed, as everything up there is good for a start article. Please advise. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just wow. You've worked magic on the article! :) (Sacha Kay (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep He seems to pass WP:MUSIC. Jenkins has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician here... [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Theroadislong (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Theroadislong. It's much appreciated. (Sacha Kay (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Keep I'm changing my delete vote from December 26th. Since then user BrillLyle has done the work necessary to cite the kinds of sources in significant numbers to create a legitimate encyclopedia entry. New editors (and editors new to WP:MUSIC) should note that the initial opposition to new articles are not to be dismissive of worthy subjects. Rather, it's to preserve the integrity of wikipedia (or what it aims to be, at least) by insisting everything adheres to our criteria for sourcing. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:ShelbyMarion. I do understand the sourcing. It's just quite frustrating if people call the Dallas Observer, The Austin Chronicle, The Oklahoman and Lubbock Avalanche-Journal unreliable and unnotable sources. And even dismiss of a notable artist, only because he's not in national charts. It's really easy to just "sit here" and push the delete button, instead of trying to help create a great article about a wonderful artist. You were the exeption, you gave useful information and BrillLyle did an amazing job on re-writing the entire article and adding more information and sources. (Sacha Kay (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: Thanks. Total agreement than oftentimes it's not about notability but is more about constructing an entry that has enough content supported by good citations to be up on Wikipedia. Am hoping this AfD can be closed now. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BrillLyle: Just wondering... How will this AfD be closed? I've tried to look it up, but it says that after 7 days it will be closed, but I couldn't find "how" it will be closed. (Sacha Kay (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC))[reply]

An admin will close it after weighing up the arguments using Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines it will either be keep, delete, or no consensus. Theroadislong (talk) 20:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I haven't looked back to see what earlier versions of the article looked like, but IMO it now looks pretty good. Several independent citations from newspapers etc. (including one in a book published by the University of Oklahoma Press) specifically about him, over more than a decade, make me say he passes WP:NMUSIC. (I haven't even looked at the non-WP:RS sources - never evidence of notability, but often very useful to support facts in a WP:BLP like this.) (BTW I hadn't heard of him.) Narky Blert (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Sue Vernon

[edit]

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

Fails PROF (and GNG). Majority of refs on the article are primary, and the only things I can find on Google (using a variety of search terms) is variations on "said Vernon" or other one-sentence mentions. Primefac (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as primary sources is only how we can specific and. exact information from this field and area, and WorldCat shows a major holding for one book published by UniversityNebraska, this would be enough. SwisterTwister talk 19:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where does "has written a book" appear in WP:PROF? Primefac (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not to contain original research, if an article is based on primary sources it needs to be scrapped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A GS h-index of 8 (for I S Vernon) may just meet WP:Prof#C1 in this low cited field. Also some WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very little sign of notability. Not enough for its own article space. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- her book is widely held in the US & internationally (1364 libraries according to Worldcat); chair of her department; fine for a low-cited field, per User:Xxanthippe. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not all that persuaded by library holdings. A book can sit on the selves for decades without being taken out. Usage would be more useful, but is not available. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Curse and The Ugly

[edit]

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

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

Two Canadian punk rock bands from the 1970s, both lacking any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and any reliable sourcing to support it — both are sourced exclusively to non-notable and unreliable fansites rather than to real media coverage, and the only actual notability claim present in either article is that The Curse were the first all-female punk band in North America if you discount the all-female punk band that came before them as "not really punk", which is absurd because anybody can claim to be the first anything if you just handwave all their predecessors away. Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform on which any band is automatically entitled to an article just because they existed, so the fact that they may have been in an under-the-radar genre that didn't garner enough media coverage does not constitute an exemption from having to source the article to media coverage — it's not our role to rectify the historical undercoverage of underground music, if we have to rely on weak sourcing to do it. If an "underappreciated" band didn't get the level of coverage in real, reliable media that NMUSIC and WP:GNG require, then they just don't get to have a Wikipedia article. It's not our job to have articles about every band that ever existed at all; it's our job to have articles about bands that are reliably sourceable as having attained notability for something. Bearcat (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book Perfect Youth: The Birth of Canadian Punk has some substantial content about The Curse [11] and about The Ugly [12]; a search for <Canadian punk "The Curse"> turns up other potential sources. On the other hand, it might be more useful for interested editors to devote some effort improving Canadian punk rock with sourced discussions. I am limited for time right now, but may have a chance to come back to this shortly.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Speedy deletion Scorpion293 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NMUSIC. Oppose speedy deletion as there is a claim of notability within the article, therefore precluding A7. -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 04:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 21:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulda Been There, Pt. 1

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article nominated for speedy deletion G4. However, the new article has substantially more references than the previous incarnation so returning here for reconsideration SpinningSpark 22:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark, it's annoying how often people tag articles for G4 merely because they're about the same subject as a deleted article; thank you for bringing it here! Please see my note at closing the previous one; since it's clearly not a good article candidate, if someone wants to redirect it to the singer, I'll protect the redirect, or by now I'll protect the title itself per WP:SALT. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sevyn Streeter...Rameshnta909 (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark I re-created the article as I felt it should have it's own article like her previous extended play. When I create article's I make sure there are enough references and that's what I've done for this particular article. There are enough sources to keep this article if there's a specific part of the article that considers more work please drop me a message and I will work to the article so it isn't deleted. KieranWard94 (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the artist per TheLongTone's previous nomination. The album lacks significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The EP has charted on two Billboard Charts, giving the album independent coverage from the artist. Here is a Billboard article regarding the album, written in 2015. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Panthers (Clark album)

[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (music) I found one reference and added it, I think the reference to this album on a discography on the artists page would be sufficient. XyzSpaniel Talk Page 14:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:17, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Abhaya

[edit]

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

Declined CSD. Unreferenced biography of person whose daughter's death of still the subject of an enquiry. Appears to have no separate notability. Nthep (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, if it is okay, I am requesting the article stay on the site if I can find a reliable source of reference, Nthep.
Respect, Deouble (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion will last for a week, so you can do what you want in that time to improve the article but I really do suggest that you read the notability criteria to full understand what notable means and has already been pointed out - being the relative of someone who is notable does not make their relatives automatically notable. Nthep (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will improve my Wiki skills. Deouble (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and notability is not inherited Spiderone 14:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Sister Abhaya murder case. Right now the article is nearly contex-less and so confusing. So he's notable for being the father of Sister Abhaya (who doesn't even get an article herself)? Sro23 (talk) 20:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spiderone KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 01:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT. There is not even a shadow of a whisper of any notability, much less any context for why he's notable, when he lived, or what he did for a living that might make him notable, other than dying under supposedly mysterious circumstances while his daughter's murder was being investigated. I don't get it. Millions of people get terribly sick in Asia every year (including me twice just in 2016, once in Bali, and once in Manila, both of which involved copious projectile vomiting). Is this some sort of international incident involving a conspiracy theory? We are not a soap box for publicizing a routine murder investigation. or conjecturing, without any sources whatsoever, whether a 72 year old sick Anglo man in Asia died of a heart attack, committed suicide, or maybe just maybe he was killed by the killers of his relative. For all we know, he died from an allergic reaction from the artificial food coloring he ingested. That does not make an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Disregarding the opinion by the blocked 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR. Sandstein 11:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aiysha Saagar

[edit]

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

her musical career only has YouTube as references. The only other claim to notability is being ambassador for gold coast but that role has no inherent notability. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few quick google searches showed other more main stream press references to her albums and to her representing the Gold Coast, etc. The social context of a subject does not matter. There are multiple and varied secondary source references to the various subject matter of this article. The ones currently in the article are not necessarily the better references. Yes, article appears to have been written by somebody not experienced in Wikipedia, but that is not grounds for deletion. Aoziwe (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please list the actual sources you refer to. LibStar (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A very small fraction of what is available, a sample of examples. Some probably very reliable, some possibly not so reliable, and some unexpected mentions, across at least Australia, India, and the United Kingdom. All in all, multiple international secondary sources, in no particular order:

Aoziwe (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the sources above, non of which are youtube videos, clearly indicating passing WP:GNG. If India TV and the Dainik Bhaskar indicate she's a pop star, so should we. Pop stars are notable. --Oakshade (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as analyzing the article sources and the ones above show they are literally still only photo galleries, announcements, listings and mentions, none of that establishing actual notability in our policies, the information itself is then we bare as it could be since it's all trivial and unconvincing, none of that helps since the sourcing itself is simply so worse. Sources saying such sheer blatancy as the beautiful and hot woman" is not anywhere damningly near our notability and we would never choose that as a sole basis at all; worse if we say "but they're sources!". For God's sake, one of the sources themselves is to a dental office's URL (!!) so it's clear there's actual intentions of an article here, instead simply filling it with whatever, which is naturally only acceptable for their own website, not here. We never alone take "this or that" as "it's enough for an article" because that's not our policies. The nomination itself shows the fact she's not independently notable for anything and this is all WP:COATRACK, next is the sheer fact some of these websites we explicitly state as unacceptable in our policies, so why would we then say "But they're sources!"? If no one actually looks at these sources, they would've actually seen the damning sheerness of such blatancy as self-advertising professional photos, not actual contents. We base notability and articles by ourselves at AfD, not from what something or someone else apparently labels them, because they are not us, and we are not them. SwisterTwister talk 07:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking a dental office source doesn't magically make all the other sources establishing notability disappear. --Oakshade (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly notable due to clearly significant mentions in clearly reliable sources, clearly to be seen in this discussion already, clearly enough to base a clearly standard and clearly neutral wikipedia article by clearly competent wikipedians. User:SwisterTwister analysis is clearly cookie-cutter, clearly biased and clearly should be dismissed as such. Like, clearly! -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Of the links in the article, a few of them provide proof of the subject's notability. However, of the new links added here - above - the subject is clearly a celebrity in India, although a minimal one. But is still worthy of its own article space. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ikenna Obi

[edit]

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

The subject obviously fails WP:GNG. I can't find any reliable source discussing him. The article doesn't provide any tangible source either. Jamie Tubers (talk) 09:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 20:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there a couple of independent sources aside from the award link, then the subject does not pass notability. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Plant (Tata Motors)

[edit]

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

Can't find much in the way of evidence this topic meets WP:GNG. Seems to receive almost no coverage in independent sources. Ajpolino (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - manufacturing plants are not inherently notable; there is no evidence of significant coverage to require an article Spiderone 10:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A major facility of a major manufacturer certainly is notable, much like the Saint Louis Assembly or Windsor Assembly which wouldn't be considered for deletion. Significant coverage certainly does exis demonstrating passing WP:GNG.[13][14][15] And these are just English language sources after only a few seconds of searching. Most certainly much more Hindi and Marathi coverage exists. --Oakshade (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good find Oakshade! Not sure how I missed those. Per the refs Oakshade found, I think the plant likely meets GNG and I'd like to withdraw my AfD nom (though I'm not sure I can, per WP:WDAFD since someone else has supported deletion). But I think this AfD can be closed keep or withdraw. Thanks. Ajpolino (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I've been watching this and the listed links are simply company and business announcements, none of this suggests a convincing article of anything but a local plant, that's not significant enough for actual notability itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In addition to those presented above, below are some more sources. Perhaps more non-English sources are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

"Tata Motors Union awaits Tata blessings on new wage settle agreement". The Economic Times.
"Lost faith in Cyrus Mistry's leadership: Tata Motors Pune union". The Economic Times.
"Tata Motors’ UK research connection". The Engineer.
"Tata Motors close Pune plant for 3 days". Mint.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NOTINHERITED. The plant itself has not received significant coverage independent of the company. The sources confirm that the plant exists, not why it is notable. In addition the sources are dealing with routine news - closure of a plant, comments by the union. None of this explains any cultural or historical significance of the plant. Also, the article itself is a bunch of WP:OR and honestly, this is eligible for a TNT. On top the that, the title isn't very precise either. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the article in its entirety is an unreferenced essay and is strongly promotional. This content belongs on the company's web site, not in an encyclopedia. The sources presented at this AfD are local or routine, so the notability is not there for a stand alone article to begin with. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2016 (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 National Highway 118 (India). By raw nosecount, delete outweighs redirect, but going with redirect as harmless, and to comply with WP:ATD. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Drive, Jamshedpur

[edit]

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

unsourced road without an indication of notability The Banner talk 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced. Not even a map reference. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If List of state highways in Jharkhand existed, this article could be redirected there. But it doesn't, so delete. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to National Highway 118 (India) per Arxiloxos. Based on Jamshedpur#Roadways, I had previously assumed that this road was not a national highway, because that section identified two other national highways that serve the city of Jamshedpur and mentioned Marine Drive but did not call it a national highway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to National Highway 118 (India). This major road can be found on the map as part of National Highway 118 (India), which already has a brief article. (On GMaps, the street name "Marine Drive" can be seen at geocoordinates 22.813135, 86.149224.) There are some news articles covering the construction and opening of the Marine Drive section, for example "Marine Drive opens to public, Jamshedpur gets an infrastructure boost", The Avenue Mail, June 27, 2015; "Marine Drive is dark & dangerous", The Telegraph (Calcutta), January 8, 2016. The second article describes the road as "Jamshedpur's landmark Marine Drive, inaugurated six months ago to ensure the steel city stays free of truck traffic most part of the day". These sources can be added to the article. Note that this road is also listed at Jamshedpur#Roadways.--Arxiloxos (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as there's nothing to actually merge considering it's simply a few words and photos. SwisterTwister talk 06:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sattva yoga

[edit]

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

No Sources and a long list of external links, looks like an SEO page. How did it survive this long? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This page also contains links that are showing up on spam reports. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/sattvayogaacademy.com Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/Local/sattvayogaacademy.com Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 09:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

seeking discussion Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sign of notability. Also, the whole article is poorly formatted and sloppy. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Spiderone 14:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Mills

[edit]

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

Listed sources still consist of nothing else but clear PR, announcements, interviews and listings, none of which establish notability and substance, even something genuine, let alone something fully acceptable; this itself was started by a vandalismfarm and my own searches find the mirrored sources, so there's no hopes of meaningful improvements here, even if someone boldly wished for them. As for the "#1" award, it seems it's a common enough occurrence that it's still too trivial and still only exists for clear PR. This itself has then not actually changed since said vandalism happened, hence not convincing either. SwisterTwister talk 17:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep [16][17] [18] [19] These are all reliable sources (Fox News, Forbes etc.), so I think she just passes WP:GNG. Selling $1 Billion worth of homes is an awful lot and I think a bit of WP:COMMONSENSE should be used here. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject has a good flow of reliable sources. However, the article's tone needs a bit of work as it sounds like an advertisement or a PR story. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The size and scope of her business is a rather strong claim of notability; the reliable and verifiable sources indisputably about her support the claim. Neither past vandalism nor PR are valid excuses for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by User:RHaworth under criterion A10. (non-admin closure). "Pepper" @ 02:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doxing Techniques

[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how to guide and the article appears to be original research. reddogsix (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 as duplicating an existing topic doxing without adding anything of value. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 17:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba under Fidel Castro

[edit]

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

Repeats information from main Fidel Castro article without adding anything substantive. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created as a merger of two related articles, "Presidency of Fidel Castro" and "Premiership of Fidel Castro." I'd nominated both as AfD for the same reason -- they repeated info (whole sections, in fact) from Fidel Castro without adding anything of significance. The new article compounds this problem by simply taking a larger chunk of Fidel Castro and presenting it as a "new" article. Scaleshombre (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Forgive me in engaging in a little WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it is perfectly standard practice on Wikipedia to have articles such as this one. For instance, we have both Government of Vladimir Lenin and Vladimir Lenin, and Presidency of Barack Obama and Barack Obama. At present it may be that the Fidel Castro and Cuba under Fidel Castro articles largely duplicate, but there is much potential for the latter to be expanded, while the former may indeed get trimmed back as it undergoes PR and eventually FAC in the coming months and years. Retaining both therefore carries great value. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This article is relevant, informative, and needs its own article space as the current subject title. Scorpion293 (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Midnightblueowl. The two are rather separate topics and while the coverage is largely duplicated, they can easily and eventually be expanded in different directions to greatly improve our coverage. Essentially, it seems like a WP:SPINOFF and a promising one at that. If they overlap too much for your liking, that's a reason to improve the article, not delete it, especially since the potential for the articles is significantly different. I don't see any real reason to delete, and a pretty good reason to keep. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 23:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close per the recently closed discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premiership of Fidel Castro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Fidel Castro that resulted in this article, which is a direct renomination with the same rationale of an article with the same page history. If the nominator dislikes the outcome of the prior AfDs, they should go to WP:DRV. -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ping @Tavix and MBisanz: the closers of the prior two AfD requests -- 65.94.168.229 (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a general suggestion- if there is consensus that there is currently too much overlap, given the above-mentioned (and, I think, fairly obvious) potential for divergence, perhaps the current article could be userfied or moved to the draft space so that it can be moved back to the mainspace when development moves it further away from the other article. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Merely not liking the result of past AFD decisions isn't a justification for making more AFDs. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon episodes (2017)

[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it is WP:FUTURE KAP03 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep creating the framework for a show that starts in less than 2 weeks and is a confirmed event is not TOOSOON. Nthep (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It is no different than starting the next month. Here it happens to be a new page also. Jdavi333 (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no benefit to deleting the article at this point. Lepricavark (talk) 00:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as it's a White Christmas. Andrew D. (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

List of time travel works of fiction

[edit]

Notice

Remember, Comment on content not contributor. It's not just a suggestion, it's the right thing to do !

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

Per Wikipedia is not a list The books mentioned in this list already have Wikipedia articles for them, so it's also redundant.Having the list in place adds no value to the articles. Therefore I move that the list (not the articles mentioned within the list) be deleted KoshVorlon 15:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC) KoshVorlon 15:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ If only this was the only list here. Actually I find this useful, as it enabled me to look up this type of fiction, and a full bibliography would not be appropriate for the main article. Can you link to the WP:NOTLIST policy please?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List can be created [[20]]. As I said, this is far too large a range of fiction to not have a list that people can go to if they want to know what is out there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, why is this list not a list? It's great that everything in this list has an article on it -- that indicates that this list meets our notability guidelines for lists. I don't I think see a valid deletion rationale here. It seems to be a valid compliment to the main article and category for time travel fiction. Keep.
Keep Wikipedia has plenty of list articles. This one meets all the requirements for one. Nominator needs to learn the rules before wasting time with pointless nomination. Kindly withdraw your nomination so this can be closed. Dream Focus 16:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dream Focus, comment on content not contributors, first of all. I've been a Wikipedian for 9 years and am well aquanited with the rules, did you not read WP:NOTDIR ? This isn't an article, it's a list pretending to be an article, it's redundant, adds no value or greater understanding to the articles linked to it, and because Wikipedia is not a directory, we have three reasons to remove this list. Kindly strike your comments. KoshVorlon 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In all that time, you never saw a list article before? Use the Search button to look for "list of" and it says "Results 1 - 20 of 1,515,068". So plenty of list articles just like this one you can easily find. Everyone here disagrees with you on this issue, so kindly listen to them, and don't try this again. Dream Focus 17:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This nomination is not supported by policy. There's no such guideline as "NOTLIST"; there actually is a page called WP:NOTLIST but it's a "humor" page. WP:NOTDIR, on the other hand, does exist but is not concerned with lists of notable articles like this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it polite.Slatersteven (talk) 17:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, meritless nomination clearly unsupported by any relevant guideline or policy. And the nominator should know better: he's been trying this "NOTLIST" nonsense for many, many years now (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hooligan firms, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of assassinated people (2nd nomination)), and he linked to a policy section that starts with "Wikipedia encompasses many lists..." This can only be trolling or an unfixable competence issue. Suggest ANI to ban from future AFD nominations of any list-related articles, if not to simply block for disruption. postdlf (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, you're right. I had no idea. "Wikipedia is not a list," was one of the 'rationales,' if you can call it that. Amazing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Postdlf please comment on content , not contributor. Also please re-read my rationale, WP:NOTDIR is only ONE of Three reasons I'm proposing deletion. KoshVorlon 20:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- No, I'm gonna comment on your cluelessness when it comes to list nominations at Afd. Sorry. And you needn't ping me. I'm watching this discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the exact kind of list that we do keep in Wikipedia, on a well-defined topic, with sourcing and organization. I'm not sure what the issue is here that merits deletion. WP:NOTDIR is not an indictment against list articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though some clean-up and possible review is needed. I have no problems with the list if it's limited to blue-links and works featuring time-travel as a primary element, but it might be worth considering whether other selection criteria are appropriate, such as third-party sourcing for the list entries. DonIago (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous voters and because no proper argument for deletion was given. --Fixuture (talk) 11:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List with obvious purpose, adding value a category can't (as well as including works that are notable enough for a list but not for their own articles). /Julle (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good point about books not notable enough for their own article, changed vote to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing a good reason, policy or otherwise, for removing this. Artw (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yousran International

[edit]

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

No demonstrated notability; reference is poor; article has not progressed and is well below expected quality. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V to start, I cannot find any reliable sources to save this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A longstanding WP:SPA article on a company. I am finding nothng beyond routine listings; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2016 (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 A7. Peridon (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Levenson

[edit]

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

Per WP:3RR here we are author fails to properly contest the csd Necrosis Buddha 13:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@NecrosisBuddha:, 3RR is not a valid rationale at AfDs. This is a speedy deletion material in it's current form. Page creator has not been warned properly about removing speedy tags yet. Hitro talk 13:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This article doesn't meet WP:Notability further more the user was warned @HitroMilanese:| here Necrosis Buddha 13:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you. I already said it is a speedy deletion material. New users are not always aware of the guidelines at Wikipedia, sometimes they need more than level 1 warning to know the guidelines and the consequences of breaching them. Hitro talk 13:50, 24 December 2016 (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 Hat Films. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Drumpf

[edit]

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

No WP:NOTABLE sources whatsoever online. Therefore, it fails WP:NMUSIC, which requires: "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.' Moreover, the overriding WP:GNG is failed too by the lack of sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Seems to be a lot of articles related to the The Yogscast are being published, mostly by User:HeyJude70, all completly non notable and someone should really tell him this before he wastes any more time writing articles on these topics. However, this is a plausible search term and should be redirected to Hat Films. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To band page as the album is a possible search term, but does not have its own independent notability.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2016 (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 by BD2412 as a blatant hoax. (non-admin closure) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 19:54, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PK (2017 film)

[edit]

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

This article is poorly written and completely unsourced. It claims to be about a 2017 film (what?) then gives a release date of 2015. It has the same name as PK (film) but claims to be the sequel (?) although nothing can be found on google to suggest a sequel actually exists. Laurdecl ^talk 12:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy if possible. Seems to be a hoax. Editor is a possible duck, aka User:Google Boys Arimalam spam creator (the name is mentioned in the article also). The editor who created this article has created the now deleted The Google Boys Arimalam 622201. Lourdes 12:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I doubt this movie exists Seasider91 (talk) 13:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable hoax; in any case, it fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 13:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Nothing online - 500 krore grossing?! That is about £6! Hoax/Non notable. Being bold and speedying this one, per WP:HOAX. TheMagikCow (talk) 13:29, 24 December 2016 (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 Greeting card#Types of greeting cards. (non-admin closure) Yash ! 12:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty cards

[edit]

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

Pointless page based on someone's personal view. Not encyclopaedic, and not likely to be. Emeraude (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's already a "risque" one liner at Greeting_card#Types_of_greeting_cards so I don't see the need to have an entire article on it. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greeting_card#Types_of_greeting_cards as per below. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Greeting card#Types of greeting cards as a plausible search term. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 15:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested by KGirlTrucker81. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aparshakti Khurrana

[edit]

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

Disc jockey. Fails WP:BIO. Single ref. No acting experience. Nothing notable. scope_creep (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - although his brother is clearly notable, there is no evidence of a WP:GNG pass in this case as notability is not inherited. Appears to fail WP:NACTOR or whatever the relevant policy is for him. His only claim to fame seems to be his arrest for assault recently. Wikipedia is not news; see WP:NOTNEWS. Spiderone 13:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough to meet GNG guidelines. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2016 (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. Not a snowball's chance of another outcome. Not mentioned in The Yogscast. czar 18:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SipsCo.

[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Every source used on the article is either unreliable (other wikis, reddit posts) or a primary source (YouTube channel of the person who created this fictional company). The1337gamer (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As no decent refs that show notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a mess. If some third party sources can be identified and the article receives a complete rewrite, maybe. Until then, I'm almost tempted to delete outright. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems to be a lot of articles related to the The Yogscast are being published, mostly by User:HeyJude70, all completly non notable and someone should really tell him this before he wastes any more time writing articles on these topics. However, this is a plausible search term and should be redirected to The Yogscast. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability whatsoever. TheMagikCow (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 02:28, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional company with no sources to show it's notable. Reads more like something that would belong on a Yogscast wikia or something, if such a thing were ever to exist... Sergecross73 msg me 19:21, 27 December 2016 (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 11:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TiDB

[edit]

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

I PRODed it without realisng it is a recreation of a speedied page. I am at a loss to know what to do with it but I'm pretty sure it's not notable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung! TiDB has been reported online in many Chinese online meida because it's developed by Chinese engineers. Is it okay for me to cite a Chinese website link? Or Can I use the following two links:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10180503 https://www.percona.com/live/plam16/sessions/how-we-build-tidb
--Queenypingcap (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the earlier note. Could you please share your comments on my question below? Thanks! TiDB has been reported online in many Chinese online meida because it's developed by Chinese engineers. Is it okay for me to cite a Chinese website link? Or Can I use the following two links:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10180503 https://www.percona.com/live/plam16/sessions/how-we-build-tidb

--Queenypingcap (talk) 02:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I hate to relist this a third time but it does need an assessment from uninvolved editors. Since it's been deleted and recreated [numerous times], a WP:SOFTDELETE won't cut it here. Mkdw ^talk 07:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 07:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two of the references in the article pertain to NewSQL, preceding and not mentioning this particular product. The remainder are a mix of online postings and presentation materials from primary sources. None of these satisfy the requirements. (In answer to the query above, there would not be a problem with Chinese language sources, but they would need to be reliable 3rd party sources.) Clearly this is a developing product but it looks at best WP:TOOSOON to demonstrate achieved encyclopaedic notability. The product is mentioned on the NewSQL page which is sufficient (even then, preferably supported by a reliable 3rd party source). AllyD (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with AllyD's assessment.--greenrd (talk) 23:29, 29 December 2016 (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) 09:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Fall, Funny Diet, Master of Dwarves, Rifle Range and Treasure Mines

[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced; not really one article but four. Admits that information on the games is lacking, which is a statement of non-notability in the article itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Author removed PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author has basically declared these to be non-notable games, even while providing the means to download them. Largoplazo (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent any reviews or significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 18:49, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2016 (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 per WP:G7. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baek Shin-ji

[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ACTOR. CSD got declined, but a proper look at the series listed out show that only the first series is legit (and her role was so minor it wasn't included in the series' page). The rest are links to a 1952 Swedish film, a disambiguation page, a series that started airing in 2016 but is listed as 2019 here, a manhwa with no announced TV series and a page on Scottish nobility. Frankly it just stinks of a hoax from an overimaginative fan. SorryNotSorry ✽ ✉ 02:31, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Has been blanked by article creator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum; please go to WP:MFD instead. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:34, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:75.22.38.30

[edit]

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

Spam --Brynda1231 [Talk Page] [Contribs] 02:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs are only for articles which User talk:75.22.38.30 is not. To nominate this for deletion, go to WP:MFD which covers the talk namespaces. -KAP03 (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2016 (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. Single-purpose accounts disregarded. Sandstein 14:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lifoti

[edit]

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

My WP:CSD tag was reverted on the grounds that this new magazine, launched in November 2016, was produced by a notable person. As notability is not WP:NOTINHERETED, and there seems to be no evidence of secondary sources supporting notability, but much suggesting WP:PROMOTION, using links to free, self-published press release websites, it is perhaps appropriate to propose this article for wider discussion under WP:AfD than speedy deletion. Parkywiki (talk) 02:00, 24 December 2016 (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)).

Keep this magazine was published in printed form, more evidence of secondary source found here Amazonso inherently notable magazine Jerrysoko (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — Jerrysoko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi User talk:Jerrysoko, just wanted to briefly mention that having a book on sale on Amazon does not mean the book is worthy of its own article space. There needs to be news coverage from independent reliable sources. If you can find any please add them in the references, otherwise, this article should be deleted. - Scorpion293 | talk 04:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Some press-releases and links to the magazine are trivial. How a listing on Amazon makes this "inherently notable" is beyond me. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No sign of notability. Press releases are not reliable sources, neither are none of the references presented in this article. Also, this user - Jerrysoko - is potentially tied to the creator of this article and his comment should not be taken into consideration. One word: Speedy Deletion. - Scorpion293 | talk 21:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into KJIVA. This is certainly not notable yet. Anything salvageable can go in the article about its founder. Adam9007 (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep- printed version of this magazine distributed globally check this ISBN 978-1540718716 having validate proof of selling on various shopping site & produced by a notable person so no chances of WP:AfD and i think user Scorpion293, Parkywiki are personally against this user —Jerrysoko might be hurt Rockwalla39 (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC) — Rockwalla39 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment This userpage User:Rockwalla39 is being considered for deletion for copying and pasting an admins banstars in order to deceive and disrupt AfD process. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Rockwalla39 Scorpion293 (talk) 05:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response That's a strong accusation, Rockwalla39 - just check my edit history and you'll see I arrived here purely because I was using WP:AWB to typo fix new articles. When I do that I check quickly to see if an article appears to have any merit - and this one does not. I have no interest whatsoever in the user you mentioned (do you?), but I am keen to avoid Wikipedia being used as a medium to promote non-notable content. It was that that reason I proposed WP:CSD, and that alone. I hadn't until today even checked the article creator's contribution history, which can oftentimes be quite telling. Merry ChristmasParkywiki (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response Sorry for accusation —Parkywiki hope u take it lightly, thank you for your best wishes & have a happy Christmas, same apologize to Scorpion293 hope u also understood —Rockwalla39 (talk) 16:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - thanks for that.Parkywiki (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response User:Rockwalla39 Please don't accuse me of being against any user. What I am against is spam and articles with no reliable sources. This article has no evidence of impact in journalism or awards won, which is needed for a news publication like a magazine. The fact that the magazine was distributed does not mean anything. Where are the news articles from Forbes, XXL, MTV, Billboard, The Guardian, New York Times, or other reliable sources like books, academic journals..etc., talking about this music magazine in-depth? In my opinion, this article should potentially be 'merged with the KJIVA. Although, however, I will need to investigate that article too as I don't see any reliable independent sources. -Scorpion293 | talk 20:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update It appears that this article, along with KJIVA, Me_n_Mah_Beat, and his apparent record label United_Naxal_Records have NO reliable independent sources at all, not one. There is nothing but "free press release" articles, iTunes & Amazon store links, and user-generated music profiles. As to how these articles got approved: I don't know. But it looks like this user has been spamming Wikipedia with hoax articles. Not one reliable source exists for this musician, and in addition, none exists with a simple Google search either. Here's an example; in this article, in the first paragraph, the following was written about the magazine: "It debuted in November 2016 with Peter Tosh on the cover..." Tosh died in 1987, so how did he make the cover? This is just one example of many that I found in articles about the subject, made to deceive editors into thinking his magazine is "notable". I think it's safe to say that this guy has duped Wikipedia editors. In my opinion, the user who created these articles, as the subject too, should be blacklisted from Wiki. I have added these articles in the "articles for deletion" section, and will continue looking for more, if any exists. -Scorpion293 | talk 23:58, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response: User:Scorpion293 this user is exploiting wikipedia policy he has added WP:AfD manually on various articles without tool & proper reason. This user don't know much more about Wikipedia:Notability_(music) page KJIVA is categories under WP:COMPOSER which is non performing personnel. secondly he is writer so don't consider it as only musician. I think this user -User:Scorpion293 is against this artist or may be his hater so he done same processes for his another pages like Murder: The Gangster Rhymes, United Naxal Records, Me n Mah Beat. This has manually remove important citation links from page and add WP:AfD over it without proper explanation. Again this user is fool in field of magazine by saying peter tosh is dead & how should he appear on cover in 2016. note forUser:Scorpion293 tupac shakur died in 1996 but still he appear on various magazine covers check issue of xxl magazine 2011. Before posting to some thing be sured what you post. I think this user is spam to do WP:AfD on various articles check this user contribution & banned. so i request block this user permanently. Ligard39 ^{(Talk2Me|Contribs)} 07:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:ATS Please help us with this user who is hoaxing Wikipedia. Can you identify any reliable sources? Thanks. - Scorpion293 | talk 00:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into KJIVA, if that article survives. Our guidelines are clear: an article must establish notability as befits an encyclopedia. Delete if KJIVA fails. —ATS 🖖 talk 02:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this is WP:PROMOTION and WP:TOOSOON, have been unable to find any useable sources, not averse to haveing a couple of lines about this magazine added to founders article. ps. being on Amazon and having an isbn does not make a publication notable. pps. this article did not get "approved" (it did not go thru WP:AFC). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Jerrysoko, just wondering what sort of relationship you have with KJIVA, as you appear to have only contributed to wikipedia on articles associated with him? also, do you have any relationship to User:Nileshjambhulkar? i note that a picture of KJIVA which that user put on wikicommons also has an author of JERRY Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response:hey Coolabahapple you are putting accusation on me just because i am contributing wikipedia about KJIVA. I found this article stub thats why i am edited it because i have the knowledge of Marathi people & their culture. Another issue i have use this picture just because search KJIVA on wikicommons and i get that result. Thats no mean i have relation with any user. If i contributed wikipedia about any articles which i have knowledge and u think its relationship with me then from next time i will never contribute to wikipedia.Jerrysoko (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jerrysoko, thank you for your reassurances, i meant no offense and hope you continue to contribute. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that Kjiva was deleted and salted after an AfD only a few months ago. I put this remark here, because the AFD for KJIVA (and several related articles]] does not seem to have been created and transcluded correctly. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone created a Kjiva article before and it was deleted twice due to no reliable sources, not one. It appears that someone created it again with no sources. I think the subject should be blacklisted from Wikipedia, as someone is clearly creating an article about this subject, which clearly has no news coverage or reliable sources. Hi User:David_Eppstein, you deleted the following article Kjiva, is this the same subject? - Scorpion293 | talk 04:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to find any significant secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - searches did not turn up the type of in-depth coverage necessary to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORP. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decomposing Pictures Cinematic Universe

[edit]

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

Fails WP:COMPANY; minimal coverage from secondary sources. Article created by staff member. Blackguard 01:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary coverage provided. This universe seems to consist of several non-notable companies working together. It is not even clear if they call themselves that or it's just the description provided by the author of this article. BayShrimp (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete mostly just facebook pages for refs - fails notability KylieTastic (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2016 (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. Sandstein 13:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hirschtick

[edit]

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

Simply nothing for actual independent notability and substance and it's enough to suggest paid advertising for this article, the company positions and achievements are not convincing as to automatically inherit him notability, the sources are not equally convincing either, thus this should not have been accepted at all. There is nothing that can suggest otherwise if we consider policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 17:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I feel he's notable enough, because he is a leading innovator in CAD software development (he created two great CAD systems), he awarded the prestigious CAD Society Leadership Award (as Autodesk’s Carl Bass, Dassault Systèmes’ Bernard Charles, and 3D Systems's Ping Fu), and ASME Leadership Award, also it is written about him in books (1, 2, 3, and one more translated to Japanese 4) and big journals (like Fortune and Wall Street Journal), there are movies about him ([5], [6]), and there are many pages link to this one ([7]). I am going to add more information about his achievements to improve the article. Ilya.lichman (talk) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single one of those sources are not inheriting automatic notability for an article from anything or anyone else, especially if they simply consist of actual interviews, company quotes, republished company or businesspeople information, or that it was by a hired freelance journalist instead of staff (this is a case specifically for Forbes, which is notorious for it); also, there's policies in place for articles such as these, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. SwisterTwister talk 07:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this clarification, and thank you for your time! Am I right that books containing chapters about Hirschtick is a sign of his notability? For instance, in the books "Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures" and "The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship Case Studies" there are chapters about him. Ilya.lichman (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – An article from Design & Motion (April 2015) refers to Jon Hirschtick as "CAD royalty", in the setting of a Develop3D LIVE conference where he co-presented with Carl Bass of Autodesk, who has a Wikipedia entry. See: https://designandmotion.net/news/jon-hirschtick-loses-onshape-to-carl-bass/ Skydog10291971 (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Being "royalty" is by all means vague and is not an instant inheritable for notability here, especially when policy is involved. This comment above has no policy-based comment, unlike WP:NOT which is. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 06:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article about Hirschtick in the Wall Street Journal - In Cards or Business, Act on the Advantage. In the article Hirsctick said, how he learned about card counting while a student at MIT, and also he described the business lessons he drew from his time playing cards. May be blackjack is not serious enough topic, but it seems that an article in Wall Street Journal about Jon Hirschtick is serious enough sign of his notability. Ilya.lichman (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the reasons other Keepers have noted. I am surprised it is even an issue. Bellagio99 (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a policy-based comment? See WP:PERX. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More comments needed please. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the claim of notability is quite strong as creator of two CAD software breakthroughs, funded by the $1 million he made as part of the MIT blackjack team, all backed up by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's not automatic inherited notability from the fact he founded software, we could then accept any other article with the sole basis of "he founded multiple sofwares" but our policies explicit state against this, and with good meaning. Also, the fact he was funded by an MIT team is also not automatically inheriting him notability. Unlike anyone else, I would actually say we have paid advertising contributions here because of the fact of not one SPA, but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article". Simply look at each source, it's about the software itself (Fortune: Funding support, WSJ: Mere mention, Forbes: By a "special contributing journalist" (which basically means he was a freelance journalist, a job that is easily bought by companies for PR). When an article then has to end with simple sourcing (see #15-28) as mentions, it shows the sheer attempts at coatracking and overbloating the article with anything to make it seem "genuinely substantial", when it's not, and policies explicitly state this. When we ignore policies against advertising, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirschtick didn't "inherit" anything from the software he created; he is notable because he created the software, as he is for his involvement in the MIT blackjack team. That one funded the creation of the other only adds to the claim. When we have single editors turning themselves into judge, jury and executioner, shouting and screaming increasingly bizarre and irrational conspiracy theories to claim that any and all sources are "advertising", regardless of the source, we have no hopes for an encyclopedia. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SwisterTwister, thank you for the explanation "but two now by the fact a second user has now started, and we've established as it is this can only mean advertising-involved, certainly not "coincidentally active users with the same one article""! Now I can understand better how it looks from you point of view. I hope it will be pertinently if I try to explain. I am a programmer in CAD/CAM company, and also I am a lecturer in a university ("Introduction to CAD/CAM/CAE" for students of 5th grade). Half of a year ago I found that there are no any articles in Wikipedia about new system Onshape and about Jon Hirschtick who created Solidworks and Onshape. I was very surprised, so I decided to create both these articles. One month ago I found that the first article was created, and that it was temporary in the list of Articles for deletion. So I started creation of the second one article via Articles for creation (to avoid mistakes of beginners). It was accepted, and two hours later you put it into the list of Articles for deletion. I absolutely agree with you that my text is not perfect, that sources must be improved. And now I can see why do you think that my article looks like a spam. But on my talk page you can see that I asked the author of the Onshape article to share his expirience about all these deletion things. And it seems that only after it he decided to rewrite part of my text. I hate spam too. But I am interesed in CAD/CAM/CAE/PLM, so I am trying to improve Wikipedia in these areas. Ilya.lichman (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Schmidt (ice hockey)

[edit]

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

With no references and no text (and a malformed infobox), does not establish ice hockey notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article probably could have been deleted with an A7. Laurdecl ^talk 01:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~will most likely appear as GNG/NSPORTS eventually but t~~The claim that he was German Player of the Year cannot be substantiated which makes the whole article circumspect. ~~So better to restart when notability is clear~~ Used sources here and at San Juan Ice Dogs are a walled garden of blogposts making this a hoax. Agathoclea (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - don't see evidence of notability. If he really was the German Player of the Year I would say keep, but he was only 14 years old when he supposedly won this award. And Elite Prospects does not have a Brandon Schmidt on the Victoria Royales roster for 2015, when he supposedly won a bunch of WHL awards. Rlendog (talk) 03:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet a notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 21:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is made up nonsense and should have been speedy deleted.18abruce (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax. Lepricavark (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There was a reasonable-sounding proposal to merge all of these into higher-level aggregation articles which span years, but that didn't attract any support, so going with the straight delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Germany at the 2011 World Amateur Boxing Championships

[edit]

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [21], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 01:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per above reasoning.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - it is an example of proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left for dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 01:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I generally agree with arguments in favor of delete, I feel the best solution would be to merge the per-country-per-year articles into per-country articles (Germany at the World Amateur Boxing Championships, etc.). GregorB (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of those articles exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they don't. However, every merge requires an extra amount of work. The real question is: should those articles exist? I don't see why not, given that the content is there already. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2016 (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 (G12) by Boing! said Zebedee . (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

B038:Minor Losses in pipe flow

[edit]

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

Course notes inadvertantly put into the encyclopedia. Unlikely search topic as article title, essay or lecture notes tone would have to be completely rewritten, by which time it would be a real article with a sensible title. Wtshymanski (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete (G12) as copyvio of [22] -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 10:26, 24 December 2016 (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.