< 24 December	26 December >

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Monster High: Electrified[edit]

Delete - See film notability guidelines. Unreleased movies are not notable unless there is some notable aspect to production as such. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article itself basically says the film isn't notable. I also don't find any independent coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFILM as an unreleased film with no notable coverage prior to release. Kosack (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced speculation. Not verifiable information. Brad v 13:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Goldberg[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of WP:NOTABLE. No information on the supposed subject of the article (as opposed to figures for his alleged winnings, which are not sourced). No reliable secondary sources. Smerus (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG BobLaRouche (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable poker player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm dumbfounded that such a poorly written and formatted article survived nine years. He came in tenth in a poker tournament; if that's not run of the mill, then nothing is. There is no other allegation of notability. The image is sideways, a such sign this is not a legitimate article. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject may or may not be WP:MILL, but he certainly does not pass WP:GNG. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails MILL and GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:41, 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 delete. The article was deleted by RHaworth. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fascial Distortion Model[edit]

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

There are claims that this is a widely used method, but no third party sources to that effect--and certainly no MEDRS-compliant sources for the claimed therapeutic effect (and for that matter, no statistics for it either. ) I considered G11 promotional, but I'd rather others looked at it also. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Copyvio from sites promoting this technique. article created by two SPA accounts. terrible. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Andrew (author)[edit]

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

non-notable self-published author. Not a speedy since there seem to be minor reviews and a trivial award, but the presumption is that self published authors are unlikely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-published author who does not meet the notability requirements for writers or the general notability requirements, and his books are also not notable. --bonadea contributions talk 23:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not all writers are notable; this one seems especially run of the mill. There are no major reviews nor awards; the one award is particularly minor. We are not a web host for writers. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other comments above (doesn't seem to meet criteria of WP:AUTHOR or WP:SIGCOV for related discipline). Also overtones of COI/close-association in patterns of editing. Guliolopez (talk) 01:56, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 15:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kwadwo Nkansah[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. No sources at all, I am only placing this in XfD to see if the editor will contribute and to give them time. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that this was nominated for deletion four minutes after creation. The effect of that is to say that the creator's efforts are unwelcome, not to give time. I've cited one of the hundreds of sources found by the news search linked above, confirming that the subject has won at the Ghana Movie Awards. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 08:57, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Visitation (Chrome album)[edit]

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

This does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 22:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The very brief deletion rationale doesn't indicate if or where sources were searched for, but coverage was easily found, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. --Michig (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suggestion for deletion makes little sense; this is the debut album of an extremely influentual band, and has received numerous reviews. Greg Fasolino (talk) 19:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are sources that can expand the article and relevant coverage. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:52, 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 delete per CSD A4: This is substantially the same article as the many previous versions which were deleted, the author deliberately recreated it despite the AfD results (see User talk:JahshakaVR#update) and there appears to be a conflict of interest between the author and the topic. As such, I don't think that we need a full AfD. I've salted this article name and Jahshaka to try to stop this spamming. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JahshakaVR:Jahshaka[edit]

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

This article had previously been deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jahshaka. It has since been re-created and deleted as a repost, but the current version differs in content and unlike the previously discussed one cites a reliable third-party source, namely German magazine LinuxUser (it also cites OSNews, but I couldn't find any indication that source is subject to editorial oversight). This, and a couple of less detailed results found by Google News, puts Jahshaka from "clearly not notable" into "debatable" in my book, though personally I don't think it's enough. Huon (talk) 22:12, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saman Halgamuge[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG, not significant. The sources are not independent of the subject. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable University professor- fails WP:NACADEMIC. Dan arndt (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:Prof#C1 with GS h-index of 33. Nominator, who has been editing for two months, is advised to study WP:Prof and carry out WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
(edit conflict) Keep. According to Google Scholar an author of several very highly cited papers, high citations overall and high GS h-index (33) – all amounting to a very convincing case for passing WP:PROF#C1. @RileyBugz: some friendly advice: be especially diligent with step 3 of WP:BEFORE when nominating articles in topics you're not overly familiar with, because these days there's almost always an applicable subject-specific notability guideline in addition to the GNG. – Joe (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes professor criteria. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sometimes, nominators who have made mistaken AfD nominations, withdraw them to save the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]

SNOW Keep as the GoogleScholar citations in IEEE is quite enough, no other serious concerns here. SwisterTwister talk 04:24, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premi O Premi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

See film notability guidelines. This is an unreleased film. Unreleased films seldom have their own articles unless the production is itself notable, and this article doesn't indicate anything notable about production. (It doesn't even state that principal photography has begun, although it probably has, and may have been completed.)

Google search reveals that the hits are either, first, on the title song, or, second, 'vanity' hits that any unreleased movie gets. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:NFILM. The article should also be salted (protected from creation except by admins). Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and probably should be salted as well. The notability simply isn't there yet. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:54, 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. Clear consensus. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 22:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Decided.[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is WP:FUTURE. KAP03 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. The track listings are mostly self-sourced, except for two songs listed on itunes. Two songs of an unreleased album do not need an article. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - February is not far off and it is from a notable hip hop artist. The unsourced details can be removed.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 09:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More info will come out about the album which can be added to the article. There have been a lot of album articles which have been made before the full track listing has been announced. Kyle
Keep - There has been many notable sites covering this project, as well as having a cover, release date, and pre order link (I'm aware this doesn't have a tracklisting but that won't be far away). Besides there has been many cases of albums being created with no tracklisting that hasn't been deleted, (ex. 4 Your Eyez Only, Plata O Plomo, etc) so why does this has to be an exception. EscoLaFlare (talk) 17:04, December 27 2016 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WP:OSE, WP:FUTURE, and Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Unreleased material. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no reason to have this article deleted, the album will be released soon. Just add content based on a source. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14,41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Keep - The album is literally coming out in two months, I see no reason to delete this if someone is going to recreate it when it comes out. JustDoItFettyg (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deleting is pointless. Just let the album snowball. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You guys scurrying around trying to get articles deleted make no sense. This is a platinum selling hip hop artist with a new album dropping in less than 2 months and the single is at 21 on Billboard. Clearly it's notable. More info will obviously be unveiled as time goes by. BlaccCrab (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Nördic Nightfury 13:20, 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 speedy delete. G5 —SpacemanSpiff 13:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aadi Naidu[edit]

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

Non notable group of people. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that a stand-alone article is justified; fails WP:GNG Spiderone 11:04, 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. Nomination withdrawn. TimothyJosephWood 16:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)(non-admin closure) Withdrew nomination. Various reliable sources exist. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 15:08, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Donner Prize[edit]

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

This article has only four sources; two are on the Donner Canadian Foundation's own website, while the other two are about instances of the award being won by individuals rather than about the award itself. A search on Google Books and Google News was also unable to reveal any sources describing the award in depth. The article thus violates WP:RS and WP:V. In addition, the author was/is likely either a WP:SPA or a paid editor, since the only other article they have edited, Canada 3.0, was also created by them and reads mostly as an advertisement. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep I ran a news archive search on Proquest and lots of sources popped up, major Canadian newspapers cover nominaitons for this Prize, write up the winners, etc. Article may have been wirtten by a staff member (one who's not very good at writing up WP articles) but the prize is real, the outfit that gives it out is a big deal (in the Canadian govt. policy world) and WP:RS write this prize up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, golly, went to look at article (okay, so I approached this search first, then read article; so shoot me) but there's the thing, Nom says "pm;y 4 sources" , yeah, but 2 of those those sources are the CBC. @Moaz786: Hi, you wanna think about withdrawing this? Save everybody here some time?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources talk about people having won the prize, without talking about the prize itself in depth. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 20:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's CIRANO on the Donner Prize: [8], but, the question here is notability. A topic can be kept as notable, but tagged for needing more information on particular aspects, or other improvements. The question at AFT is not whether an article is as good as it could/should be, but simply whether the topic itself is notable enough so that a good article can be created.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Winnipeg Free Press giving the info you're asking for "Donner Prize cash award boosted to $50,000" [9]; ~~and here's the Globe and Mail [10] with similar coverage of the prize itself.~~WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:11, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You will notice that the Globe and Mail article talks about a completely different "Griffin Prize", not the Donner Prize. The CIRANO article does not talk in depth about the prize; there is literally only one sentence about it. That leaves only one source about the actual prize. In addition, most of the winners remain unsourced. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 13:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, here's a search of the Globe and Mail: [11]. Notability is simply not in doubt. But note that the first hit on that search [12] reads, in part: "the Donner, one of Canada’s richest non-fiction awards, which was established in 1998 to celebrate “excellence and innovation in Canadian public policy thinking, writing and research.”" and continues by listing the extremely distinguished judges.

What you need to understand is that many terse and undersourced articles come to AFD. the task here is to assess whether the topic is notable. It can be tagged for improvement, in the hope that someone will take the time to source and expand it. But the Donner Prize is clearly notable; even if the article needs improvement, as do most articles on Wikipedia. Also Note that we do regard the publications - including webpages - of reputable Prize committees as WP:RS for the prizes they award. WP:SNOWBALL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I admit to having a certain bias as a Canadian, I think that E.M.Gregory has established notability. The Globe and Mail's description of the importance of the prize is persuasive. And WP:CORPDEPTH does suggest we consider the breadth of coverage, even if the depth isn't always apparent. What we do have does rise about routine events. So I think we have enough for a main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If Shawn in Montreal says it, must be true. Withdraw nomination. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 13:40, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Publication appears to have significant history and frequent citations in other reliable sources, therefore meets basic criteria for newspapers/magazines according to Wikipedia:Notability (media). The latter is not a notability guideline, nevertheless current consensus appears to be that this is an important topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flight International[edit]

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

Topic appears to be non-notable based on the General notability guideline – I find little to no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Google books results appear to be either passing mentions or just citations. The sources currently used in the article are either copies of the magazine itself or press releases circulated by PR Newswire and Business Wire. Such paid promotion is not a valid route to an encyclopedia article, nor do such routine news reports constitute significant coverage according to Wikipedia:Notability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC) (Update: press release sources have been removed with the addition of one citation to a brief mention on an independent publication. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited an independent reliable source confirming that this is the world's oldest continuously published aviation magazine, and note that the "books" and "scholar" searches linked above show that this publication is very highly cited in academic works. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for adding that source. Since the topic occupies less than a single paragraph in the book, I'm not sure it's notable enough for a standalone article, though it could be worked into a different article. As for the magazine being "very highly cited", that's beside the point. Notability requires significant coverage in independent sources. According to WP:GNG, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content", and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a long-standing, well-regarded and still widely available magazine. As the IP editor notes above, the results of the links demonstrates that this is a widely cited work. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Request snow close for keep This AfD better be a joke right? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A clearly notable aviation magazine. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
snow - close and speedy keep. Reporting the OP for WP:DISRUPTION might also be considered - either that or their failure to identify RS is a blatant lack of WP:COMPETENCE. Just for starters:
1. R. Dallas Brett's entire two-volume content of History of British Aviation 1908-1914, 1933 (My copy is a 1988 reprint) was culled from the pages of Flight.
2. Wikipedia's aviation articles make extensive reference to it, see for example John William Dunne, Lee-Richards annular monoplane, Flying wing etc. etc,
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, here are the notability guidelines at WP:NMEDIA and also reproduced at WP:MAGAZINE:
Notability is presumed for newspapers, magazines and journals that verifiably meet through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
have produced award winning work

have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history

are considered by reliable sources to be authoritative in their subject area

are frequently cited by other reliable sources

are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets
Note that Flight only needs to pass one of these. There is no question that it passes several of them. The claims made by the OP are transparently false. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just for good measure, here are some RS that index their citations/mentions of Flight: Walker, Early Aviation at Farnborough (both volumes), Gollin, No Longer an Island, Hallion, Taking Flight, Babington Smith, Testing Time. Is that enough to pass 4. yet? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Frivolous AfD nomination of the most notable periodical in the field of aviation for over 100 years. - Ahunt (talk) 18:17, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomikos Michael Vaporis[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a particularly notable academic. JDDJS (talk) 18:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw ^talk 17:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only a few GS cites in a very low cited field but passes WP:Prof#C8. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep although not as confident compared to others, the founding of a journal in 1984 at a notable university is enough. SwisterTwister talk 22:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As holder of a senior post in what was probably a small college and editor of two journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does seem to be notable. The article creator, User:Cvaporis, should be welcomed, helped, and pointed to WP:COI so that they understand those policies and take care with their editing! Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:45, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cadet Chronicles[edit]

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

This article is basically a commercial for a blog. JerrySa1 (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is WP:SELFPROMOTION because its references are not independent of the subject. It also states on its talk page, "This is the official article written for the blog and its written under the direct supervision of owners of the blog and in no way this is advertising or anything like that! This purely for the information of people visiting our blog." This suggests WP:SELFPROMOTION. KAP03 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition, no indication this particular blog is notable. --Lineagegeek (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as KAP03 and Lineagegeek. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is pure WP:SELFPROMOTION, which is confirmed by the talk page, and has no real claims of independent notability either. Kosack (talk) 09:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SELFPROMOTION, also fails WP:GNG and WP:NWEB --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:56, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jw (Counter-Strike player)[edit]

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

Unfortinately for video game players, they are not covered by a dedicated subguideline like WP:SPORTSBIO so they have to meet the same WP:GNG as lesser, non-regular sport mortals. I don't see what makes is individual notable. He seems moderately successful, but - so what? Coverage of his career seems limited to niche portals/trade journals on video games. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm quite familiar with the ESL and I have heard of this guy but Godsent isn't really a major team and none of their players have articles except for this one. He played with Fnatic for 3 years with Olofmeister but was really a background player (I think he was the reserve in fact). Therefor I can't see how he is notable. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of these claims aree true, he was a full member of fnatic for all three years, and the team won a record number of majors those years.--Prisencolin (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @AlessandroTiandelli333: Flusha has an article that looks even worse then this. Should we AfD it as well? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please, User:Piotrus. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Typically better to redirect the player articles to the team articles, if they're mentioned there in detail czar 18:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both - neither have the third party coverage to meet the GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 19:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ESPN, Yahoo, Daily Dot, Aftonbladet etc don't amount to significant coverage.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:54, 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 keep. I'm going to go ahead and close this early per WP:SNOW. We are not going to delete an article on a German state legislator because of perceived COI, especially since the article itself is neutrally worded and WP:TNT does not apply. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Meyer[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:PROMOTION. This is because the user who has made most of the edits on the article is User:Abgeordnetenbüro Jens P. Meyer which suggests that the article is promotional. KAP03 (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Being a deputy to Hamburg Parliament likely satisfies WP:POLITICIAN criteria 1. Authorship may warrant tagging with ((autobio)), but not deletion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:POLITICIAN #1. I've reported the creator's account to WP:UAA, but subject is clearly notable and while the article is vaguely promotional, it's nowhere near WP:G11 territory. Article could use improvement, but deletion is not warranted here. --Finngall ^talk 17:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 AFF Beach Soccer Championship[edit]

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

This tournament did not take place. It was meant to take place in August 2016, but was then postponed and still has not taken place. All results and goalscorers are fictional. Mcruic (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to AFF Beach Soccer Championship, I can't find much info on this however if it's not happened then it's probably better to just redirect. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 16:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per below - I assumed the event was a yearly thing but it's not (last event was 2008) and as this been been postponed everything in the article isn't obviously correct now and there's next to no coverage of the event either so I personally see no point redirecting, Better off deleted. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is SPORTSPAM. And we need to write such a guideline. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 10:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 10:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see the point of a redirect - in other years where there has not been an AFF Beach Soccer Championship (for example 2015 AFF Beach Soccer Championship, 2013 AFF Beach Soccer Championship), there is no redirect. The page you would be redirecting to (AFF Beach Soccer Championship) also has erroneous information about the 2016 tournament that did not take place, and dubious information about a 2017 tournament, which mentions 8 teams taking part but lists only 5 (the same editor has provided the information). The same editor has also entered a completely made-up schedule for the 2017 AFC Beach Soccer Championship, and is clearly publishing imaginary information, for whatever reason. If the 2016 page is to be kept, then all results and scorers should be removed, and a simple note at the top needs to be written to say that the tournament was scheduled, but then postponed, and eventually not played. This information can be found with a 5 or 10 minute search of the internet. Mcruic (talk) 09:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at how long ago it started but lets say the AFF started in 2005 then I assumed from 2005 to now all had articles, If they don't then I won't object to it being deleted. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2014 was the first and only edition so far. There was also an unofficial edition in 2008 (not organised by AFF, the Raja Muda Johor Cup, which actually had 9 AFF countries competing compared to the 2014 official event's 7). The AFF-organised event was meant to be biennial - but this year's edition was postponed. It is not clear yet whether it will be held next year, or if this edition will just be skipped and the next edition will be played in 2018. Possibly the page could be left, but the fake content (results, goalscorers) could be taken out and a note could be made to say the tournament was scheduled but not held. I am not sure of the protocol for "scheduled tournaments that didn't take place" - are they deemed sufficiently noteworthy to have their own page? Mcruic (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think some can be if there's alot of news coverage around it - If there's not then I'd generally say no they're not, Anyway tanks for explaining that (I've just checked the article and indeed they've only had one event so far so seems silly to keep this), Anyway thanks again. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under A11 criteria. Nördic Nightfury 10:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned that the event took place in early December, but there are no valid sources that I could find on English Google that support the claim. I have also had a look by editing the name, I have found one for a similar Vietnamese-hosted event in September but web page appears to be malformed. I'm on the edge for this one at the moment, until I can safely say there is no other sources available, I will have to go for tentative delete. Nördic Nightfury 10:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2nd edit I have found a better page here but it doesn't have any significant details; this may be the source that we are looking for. Nördic Nightfury 10:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are 2 completely different tournaments. The "Asian Beach Games" are a biennial multi-sport event held by the Asian Olympic Council for all Asian countries - beach soccer is one of the sports at that event. The "AFF Beach Soccer Championship" is for members of AFF only (ASEAN Football Federation - for ASEAN (i.e. Southeast Asian) countries). The AFF Beach Soccer Championship was not held this year - as per the official AFF website (http://www.aseanfootball.org/v2/aff-beach-soccer/aff-beach-soccer-championship-2016/) This should be deleted without question as all the information on the page is fictional. There is also no news in Vietnamese-language news sites - which is unusual considering they supposedly won the tournament... Mcruic (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the arguments of others; this is a misleading article and a work of fiction; deletion makes more sense than redirecting. Spiderone 21:54, 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 all. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (Happy New Year!) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenwood Township, Schuyler County, Missouri[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also going to nominate these articles because they have the same problems as mentioned above for Glenwood Township, Schuyler County, Missouri -KAP03 (talk) 17:13, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, these legally recognized civil divisions are rather clear-cut acceptable topics per WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." They are properly cited to GNIS (to confirm legal recognition as a civil district, even if inactive) and, at least for those I checked, an additional source for etymology. I'd also add that if you're assuming a dearth of WP:RS coverage based on internet searches alone, that these sorts of topics are most likely to be fleshed out from dead tree sources; easier for editors with such means to do so if the article already exists. Antepenultimate (talk) 17:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Yes, the nominator's statement about a lack of reliable sources leads me to suspect he or she hasn't read WP:GEOLAND. These townships all seem to be legally recognized places. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, per Shawn in Montreal. --do ncr am 20:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Per WP:GEOLAND --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:08, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrities who were shot and lived[edit]

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

Unneeded. Other articles can cover it. The Traditionalist (talk) 14:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is WP:LISTCRUFT because it is a unnecessary list. KAP03 (talk) 15:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 16:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, many articles will have covered this topic.JerrySa1 (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant list Spiderone 17:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not...really seeing any enduring encyclopedic value here. TimothyJosephWood 16:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Among other reasons, "celebrities" is an undefined description. Theodore Roosevelt? Felsic2 (talk) 16:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Mas Devesa[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, references don't include reliable independent sources to demonstrate meeting WP:GNG. KDS4444 (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per reasons above. Eric-Wester (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 December 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The references only peripherally mention the subject, if he is mentioned at all. No authoritative references appear to discuss the subject specifically.--Rpclod (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:MUSIC or WP:ACADEMIC Seasider91 (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable composer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JB Matias[edit]

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

Finished 6th in a school prize. Not notable. noq (talk) 08:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (A7): Being recipient of a non-notable prize for writing a 200 word essay may be appropriate for mention on the prize-giving organisation's Facebook page but is no basis for encyclopaedic notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BASIC. (I have also flagged this for CSD A7.) AllyD (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flatlander: Book One[edit]

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

non notable book. Article appears to have been created by the books author. No sources and google searches not finding any coverage. noq (talk) 08:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a book self-published through iUniverse. There is a review here but in my opinion that is insufficient for the WP:NBOOK criteria or broader WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Blue Ink Reviews charges for their reviews, so they wouldn't be considered a RS on here. It looks like their Kirkus review was part of the site's paid service, although I will say that Kirkus is not really seen as a RS anymore by more than a few of us on here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't noticed that payment tariff. (Pricy too - significantly more than I was paid in the past when reviewing for print publications.) AllyD (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show notability for this book and it doesn't look like there is any coverage out there that was written by a independent, reliable source. Everything was either paid for by the author (or a representative) or it was written by the author himself. There isn't even any coverage from the book blogs and while those can't be used as a RS on here, the lack of chatter from that sector is sometimes fairly telling - especially for self-published or indie books. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "Kirkus is not really seen as a RS anymore by more than a few of us on here", coola tentatively raises hand ... but only if it is an old review from kirks, and would not rely on a later one for notability... Coolabahapple (talk) 15:47, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, very early KR reviews would likely be usable. I tend to use them if they're from the 1990s or earlier, but those are harder to come by sometimes - good point! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:01, 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 delete. Non-notable self-promotion, references are all essentially self-sourced Acroterion (talk) 18:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Almanza(Socialite)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Andrew Philip Almanza

Articles for deletion/Andrew Almánza

Articles for deletion/Andrew Phillip Almanza

Articles for deletion/Andrew Almanza (skateboarder)

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

n example of non-notability, known for being such. DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I expect impeccable sourcing to establish the notability of a "socialite". The references in this article are terrible, and I have never before seen a source as bad as Urban Dictionary used in a biography of a living person. A good faith search for better sources came up dry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:34, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Andrew Almanza socialite KEEP Andrew Almanza skateboarder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.247.74 (talk) 17:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I echo Cullen328 concerns. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:44, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Presidents of Ukraine by longevity[edit]

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

Totally unnecessary list -- only 5 entries, and the information can be gotten as easily from the main article DGG ( talk ) 06:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:LISTN; I thought that the article would be about how long they were in office (which would arguably be notable) for and not how long they've lived, which is clearly not a notable topic. Spiderone 13:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #4,#5, and #11. KAP03 (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The underlying concept is non-notable. Considering that every president of Ukraine is still alive, the concept of which of them has lived the longest is not particularly relevant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:37, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life economy[edit]

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

Essay--no evidence of any notice beyond the first article proposingthe theory DGG ( talk ) 06:10, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 07:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete the whole article is basically an essay that completely fails to establish notability. I also have some suspicions that it was translated (and copied) directly from a Russian article.^[1] ^[2] Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment screening out "second life", I found a few news sources, none of which were immediatly helpful. Perhaps userfy? Bearian (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One link is to a primary source, the rest are not to anything that is related directly to the article subject, and the sources available on search (even using Cyrillic) are unconvincing. This seems more like a case of WP:NOT#OR than anything else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:19, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Davis (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:GNG. Was all-WAC once at Idado, but nothing about his college career meets WP:NCOLLATH. Since then, he has been a practice squad NFL player with no regular-season appearances. There is only routine sports reporting on this player. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. EricEnfermero (Talk) 06:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I ran searches in google and NewsLibrary and did not find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Cbl62 (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently not finding the coverage to pass WP:GNG. Naturally, that could change in the future...--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 17:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable player of American football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 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 Keep. Michig (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blossoms of Fire[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Appears article was created by producer/director of film. No sources were cited in article. A Google search provided no reliable sources. Fails WP:NFO and WP:NFSOURCES. CBS527^Talk 03:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A film catalog listing at the National Museum of the American Indian verifies that the film has won awards. I found a review in the New York Times, a review in Film Journal International, and a review in Time Out (magazine). Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My rule of thumb for "multiple" reliable sources is a minimum of three, and so just the three linked to above by Cullen328 are enough for me. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that a search for the Spanish title yields additional coverage, such as this news story. References do not have to be in English language. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:NFP per a review of available sources. Here's another source. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 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. Michig (talk) 09:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Guterman[edit]

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

I can't find too much on this guy, beyond Wikipedia mirrors and some primary sources. Nothing to indicate that he satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. He simply does not appear to satisfy any notability guideline. Safiel (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked too. I do not believe that he satisfies our Wikipedia notability criteria for inclusion.--FeralOink (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He's just known for trolling Trump on Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.248.93 (talk) 20:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to demonstrate he passes notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Johnpacklambert said. Porquilho (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and IP user. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 05:15, 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 Speedy Delete (G1) by Versageek (non-admin closure) -- sandgemADDICT ^yeah? 06:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Plot And It,s Applications[edit]

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

This seems to be a how-to guide, which is something Wikipedia is not, per WP:NOTGUIDE. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 02:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTGUIDE: It's reads like an religious how to guide. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 02:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Once one scrapes away the interestingish aspects, it's a how-to guide for a specific use of specific software. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whatever it is, it isn't encyclopedic. It is also incomprehensible, but, as Gorgias would say, if it could be comprehended, it would not be encyclopedic. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Patent nonsense. K_arunamon ^Talk 03:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense. JDDJS (talk) 05:10, 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 Delete. Michig (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Normanton Telecoms[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable telecommunications company, as a search for coverage in reliable sources failed to find much of use. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:46, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:47, 25 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)).

Companies House Ofcom and a independent adjudication service aren't reliable?? Just a point but could you explain this reliability to me as I don't think I understand the same English language as you. Bobbywithtechies (talk) 01:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been given the Template:Refimprove to improve and add additional references to the article. Bobbywithtechies (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What Wikipedia needs for a company article is evidence that it meets the notability standards described in WP:NCORP. Mere evidence of existence, which is all that Companies House and Ofcom appear to offer, is not sufficient. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are reliable for existence; they are not reliable for purposes of showing the firm to be notable, because they are just directories that include all companies. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. I've personally used this company - yes they're cheap and they're reliable. Notable perhaps but this is a encyclopedia - this is where everyone comes to for information. It is a actual company that trades globally and works - people need to know about it. Tedsocha20459 (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Striking vote by Checkuser confirmed sockpuppet. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New account just registered, only edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bought a phone from here, was cheap and absolutely brilliant, excellent customer service Laurengeee (talk) 12:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC) (taken from Talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbywithtechies (talk • contribs) [reply]
New account (User:Laurengeee) just registered, only edit. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No authoritative references show notability. The majority of references are to the subject's own website. Some stated facts that appear to contradict notability: "The company claims to have over 200 customers in October 2016" and "The company is still headquartered from <the CEO's> garage". Wikipedia is not a directory.--Rpclod (talk) 13:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Company has requested customers to attempt to keep the page. A company can be still headquatered from a garage with regional offices and still have a large staff directory and customer book. Bobbywithtechies (talk) 18:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Company has requested customers to attempt to keep the page"?--Rpclod (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company has sent a mass email to all customers via their mailing list to get them to put keep on this page. Bobbywithtechies (talk) 19:50, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if my memory serves correctly, I nominated this for deletion ages ago and it was deleted because it was purely promotional in nature. I'll try find the old AfD, but delete because it's not notable in anyway (as shown on article). st170e^talk 00:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the older AfD: here. st170e^talk 00:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As such, it should be subject to deletion under criteria for speedy deletion G4. I recommend that whoever closes this AfD consider salting "Normanton Telecom" and variations.--Rpclod (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. There are no articles in reliable sources that focus on this company, just listed in a directories. Wikipedia is not a free publicity site. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Tedsocha20459 is a Confirmed sock puppet of Bobbywithtechies. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobbywithtechies.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RileyBugz (talk • contribs) 03:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Artikal Music UK[edit]

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

One source, no claim to significance. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 00:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, oh god. The discussion threads here are still extremely confusing to navigate. Anyway, I'm definitely planing on expanding the article on Artikal Music as much as possible. This label is very important in the dubstep scene at the moment and the sole source mentioned reflects that.

I'd love to know what kind of aditional sources besides their official website and official release list you guys think is required for a music label. I can find interviews and music stores profiles but those wouldn't be a proof of a statement or anything, just another way of validating the label exists. But yeah, this and other labels I plan to add are very important to the dubstep and bass community and we feel it's time they get the recognition they deserve plus, I want to do it the right way so the articles don't get deleted. Thanks! Ecwpa (talk) 01:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, added some sources, hope it's enough to keep the article up. Ecwpa (talk) 01:42, 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 delete. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucine fyelon[edit]

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

Refs added. Still not notable. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 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. Michig (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Norman N. Hsu[edit]

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

Delete. Fails notability. This is a former local school board member who was voted off the board for a business scheme involving other board members. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So what about that? There are multiple references in the article including 3 Los Angeles Times articles. --do ncr am 01:16, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and notice that they refer more to two board members. Hsu seems to be mentioned only as the guy with the service they were pushing. It's their wrong-doing as board members that is the subject of the LA Times articles. Hsu was already off the board. In any event, unless the business scheme deserves an article, then there seems no reason for any of them, including Hsu, to have articles. And they don't have WP articles. Just Hsu. Some of the edits on his page were not sourced and made accusations, which made me wonder if this page is really more of an attack page. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page was started because of potential confusion with Democratic fundraiser Norman Hsu. At the time this friend of Hillary in NYC became famous/infamous, anything you could find about "Norman Hsu" would be about this Republican guy in L.A. He was locally well known for many years before this bad guy pops up from NYC. HkCaGu (talk) 05:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. We do not need an article about a non-notable person just because they share a name with a notable person. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retain Following the activity of SW3 5DL, unfortunately he is taking a partisan approach to deleting wikipedia entries, with certain bias. Norman Hsu was one of the first and longest-serving Chinese American politicians in Los Angeles, which is surely notable. SW3 5DL tends to delete sources from WP pages then claim that entries should be deleted because the sources are no longer there.Wikiwatcher99 (talk) 19:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikiwatcher99 has been blocked for edits such as this, which are disruptive as they focus on the nominator with personal attacks and not on Wikipedia policies which would apply to the article in order to justify a "Keep" vote. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Local school board membership is not sufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local level politician with only local coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 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.