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The result was nomination withdrawn as the article now contains a much stronger notability claim and better sourcing than it did at the time of nomination. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

William Cage (Tennessee)[edit]

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

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

Delete. Completely unsourced biography of a person notable only as "Speaker of the House" in the unofficial provisional legislature of a proposed U.S. state that never actually became a real state. While that might be valid grounds for an article if he could actually be sourced over WP:GNG for it, it's not an automatic WP:NPOL pass in the absence of any valid sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for a standalone article. He is already mentioned in the State of Franklin article. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 23:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - There is a lot of coverage of Cage, some decently in-depth. The best source, I think, is a one page biography of him on page 313 of History of the Lost State of Franklin by Samuel Cole Williams Press of the Pioneers, New York, 1933 [1] Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A 200-word blurb in a book that's over 300 pages long is a strong source to you? Bearcat (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't ask for much, I guess. I updated the article, for what it is worth. Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject isn't notable. Changing to Keep as the subject meets NPOL. I read History of the Lost State mentioned above. I also found this, this, and this. I don't see general notability. He perhaps served in the Continental Army as a Major, moved to his home in Tennessee (Franklin), and for a brief period was the proposed Speaker of the House for a state that never existed. There's not enough to write a real biography. Perhaps someday an historian will write a study about him but right now, I can't see the point of this article existing. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible keep -- I think you are all being too negative. I do not know about the subject, but I gather we have RS on him. Alright, the state was not actually created, but its shadow legislature apparently existed and met. Sure, it is only a stub, but WP has lots of stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Article now has sources.  As per the article, "He was a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives (then called the House of Commons) in 1783 and 1784."  This satisfies WP:NPOL#1.  The article further states, "Cage took a central role in the [Franklin] movement, and was appointed treasurer and elected speaker of the lower house of the first assembly of the provisional state, serving from August 1784–June 1785."  This also satisfies WP:NPOL#1.  Wikipedia's role for our readers is to provide reliably sourced information as is available.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:43, 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  10:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Cohen (lawyer)[edit]

Richard J. Cohen (lawyer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Reviewing the article. I think it Fails policy WP:BIO. Its reads like a CV. Named to Thomson Reuters’ Super Lawyers each year since 2007. Could be notable? scope_creep (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is just a resume. There's no indication of notability. I don't see that the fellowship in American College of Coverage and Extracontractual Counsel or the marketing "Superlawyers" convey any notability, for example. TJRC (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Revisions coming. Thank you all for your feedback. I would like to improve this page to focus on the subject’s notability, and will do so as soon as possible. I am fairly new to Wikipedia article creation and editing – many thanks in advance. RayKHessel 22:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Revised per commentary on AfD entry. I hope these revisions adequately address the concerns raised above. If there is anything more I can do to remove this article from deletion consideration, please let me know. Thank you. RayKHessel 21:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayKHessel (talk • contribs)

• Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete largest claim to notability seems to be running the 178th-largest law firm in the United States (from Goldberg Segalla), otherwise an unremarkable career by encyclopedic standards. At most, merge into Goldberg Segalla but even then I'm not sure it's worthwhile. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:07, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xheni Çuni[edit]

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

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

Student photographer who fails WP:CREATIVE.

Several dead references but Kultplus works and translation of block of text states:

Also participating in this evening will be Jenny Guy, student of the Art Academy of Düsseldorf which a few weeks ago presented its works in a major exhibition in Düsseldorf. In the evening she will be presented with some pictures that motivated mainly men.

This was published on 2016-03-15. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. — Sam Sailor 00:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obviously fails both WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing new seems to appear in Google (which is not itself authoritative, but I don't think we're missing anything big). 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:12, 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 redirect to Baaghi (2016 film). (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj[edit]

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

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

Fails notability. Draft was declined thrice at AfC earlier this year for notability concerns. See Draft:Grandmaster Shifuji Shaurya Bhardwaj. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 09:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: According to the deletion log, this article has been speedied four times this year already. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 16:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect-I hardly find him passing WP:ACTOR.Redirect to Baaghi (2016 film). Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2016

• Redirect: not enough for a stand alone article, IMO, but a redirect seems like a reasonable solution. The redirect page could then potentially be protected to stop it from being constantly recreated without appropriate oversight (i.e. an unprotect request). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 3 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dialpad[edit]

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

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

This specific product is not notable on its own. The references and material in the article only refer to usual announcements about funding and product launches. A search of online sources about it doesn't yield much to establish notability either. TushiTalk To Me 07:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- all the references given lead to no reliable sources to support notability of the subject. Wikipedia depends on reliable sources and this article has none of that. A search online doesn't yield much to save this article too. Bilbo Baggins (talk) 10:15, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- "minor-tech-startup" spam, aka WP:TOOSOON, and nothing else. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No specific coverage from reliable, secondary sources - fails the WP:GNG. TheMagikCow (talk) 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't pass WP:GNG from the sources I could find online. Xaxing (talk) 07:18, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  01:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Himansu Gupta[edit]

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

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

Non-notable person due to lack of indepth coverage. Marvellous Spider-Man 05:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although in definite need of a rewrite, there are sources that demonstrate independent notability under WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:53, 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 00:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megaventory[edit]

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

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

no evidence that it is yet in regular production. The 2016 review says its major product is still in beta. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 2016 review has a correction in its first comment stating it is no longer in BETA. Following your comment here, I have reached out to the review author to update the post in order to reflect that Megaventory is in full production mode (bear in mind the review post was initially put together in 2014).

Also, note that the product is not only in production but also in notable ranking - as is reflected in the relevant industry metric which is the GetRank. Megaventory is currently #17 in a global market of dozens of similar solutions and it has 30+ reviews in GetRank from an equal number of LinkedIn-authenticated users. This link to getapp.com was in the initial version of the Megaventory article and was rejected by a previous reviewer but I'd be glad to include the link again if you feel it adds to the newsworthiness of the Megaventory article.

Let me know if you have any other concerns you see in the article which can be addressed in the meantime and until the 2016 review article is updated with regards to the BETA mention. Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback which can be used to improve the article. Dathanasiadis (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely advertising with WP:NOT applying, that's all we need. SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the WP:NOT is in reference to Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion and in particular (5) - Advertising, marketing or public relations. All content and corresponding references in the article are verifiable and from notable, third party sources - earlier feedback from other Wikipedia users has ensured this. Indicatively, the references include partnerships with a national ISP (COSMOTE), a multinational tech vendor (NEC), a national app marketplace (Maestrano), an independent review site which has taken the time to write a 3500-word unsolicited review (Merchant Maverick) and others. Please indicate if there are specific concerns with any of the included sources and associated content.

Dathanasiadis (talk) 11:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- being one of 20 finalists in a non-notable competitions for startups strongly suggests that it's WP:TOOSOON for this company / product to have an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Just another start-up with nothing remarkable to be on Wikipedia. Xaxing (talk) 09:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Being #17 among 200+ companies in their market seems notable: https://www.getapp.com/operations-management-software/inventory-management/#getrank Attagb (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:31, 5 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. Mkdw^talk 07:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CarDekho[edit]

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

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

No real coverage of this run of the mill website, same as last time around. The citations consist of blogs and weak "news" orgs that "write" articles that are mere paraphrases of announcements and press releases. No real reporting, If the subject weren't touting these "events", nobody would know that they happened because they don't matter outside of this company's tiny fishbowl. They are using Wikipedia for PR. Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Spiderone 14:03, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Possible notability for parent corporation does not transfer to subsidiary, and the sources available for subsidiary are apparent repackaged PR. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:26, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Reason Is You[edit]

The Reason Is You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable single. Sources in the article are unreliable, and no reliable ones could be found with a web search. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Fansites may not be an RS, but do you really contest that it didn't chart on any of the 4 major charts listed? Sergecross73 msg me 01:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for the chart is [2], a primary source. The article could be redirected to Nina Gerhard if and when that article gets created, but right now it only exists on the German Wikipedia. Until an English version of the German article is created, deletion is appropriate. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Arguably more likely to be searched for in reference to the Hoobastank song The Reason. KaisaL (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The song definitely made #2 in the Belgian chart, as confirmed [1990s-The-Reason-Is-You here], a reliable site for chart positions. (A second single by her also reached #17.) I would therefore keep this, although prioritise also creating her actual article. It's odd to have a page for a song but not the artist, but the deletion criteria for that only really covers situations where the artist hasn't got an article for notability purposes. This article is a good start for this single, so I'd be against removing it. A short article for Nina Gerhard would be the ideal solution here. KaisaL (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now created an article at Nina Gerhard, which while brief should eliminate this problem. KaisaL (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and I nearly closed as such as there's enough to keep here. SwisterTwister talk 07:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Shown notability in charting, end of story as far as I'm concerned. GauchoDude (talk) 18:33, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inger (programming language)[edit]

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

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

This is a programming language designed as a teaching example in a textbook, and Google searches do not support the language meeting WP:GNG on its own. Page contains no references. Dgpop (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability independent of the textbook in which it was used as an example.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there are hundreds of computer languages created every year. This one does not show the key independent use or notability that would be required to make it notable.49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:17, 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 05:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Otherworld[edit]

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

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

Despite an extensive search for sources, I simply failed to find enough significant independent reliable coverage for this film. Most of what I could find are press releases, movie profiles, promotional material, and even false positives. Apparently this film was screened at a film festival which makes me hesitant to nominate this for deletion, but coverage (including reviews) is sorely lacking; the film apparently doesn't even have a Rotten Tomatoes page. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NFILM. Also uses IMDb as a source which bumps into WP:RS/IMDB. If it ever gains larger notability then the article can be recreated. MarnetteD|Talk 01:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant independent coverage and no indication that WP:NFILM applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's a press release that was distributed, such as [3] at WTVM, but there's little independent coverage. There's an entry in AllMovie's database but no review. From the IMDb entry, it was recently released, so maybe it will get enough reviews to satisfy our inclusion criteria later. It could be userfied or moved to draft space if the creator wants, but it's so short that I'm not sure there's much point in doing so without a request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For reasons stated above. lbmarshall (talk) 12:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 2016[edit]

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 1989 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Billboard top 10 Alternative singles in 1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While anyone can compile such lists by looking at past charts or back issues of Billboard in print or online, the topic of top ten alternative or modern rock songs is not one receiving significant discussion in independent sources, failing notability requirements for stand-alone lists. These may also qualify as "an indiscriminate collection of information" per WP:IINFO; otherwise, this may as well be expanded to include top 20 or top 40 chart hits. The list of Billboard number-one alternative hits would seem to be sufficient. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and I agree that it also falls foul of WP:IINFO. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would actually find these articles useful if they weren't so blatantly incomplete. It's a bit IAR of me, but I would suggest that if these were actually well-written and complete, I would likely vote a different way, just because I do find this information to be encyclopedic. However, in their current form, there is simply no value. KaisaL (talk) 17:46, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Essinger[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. There seems to be very little coverage in mainstream sources; I can find only a few Swedish language mentions, and nothing that would show notability. As for her career, it seems she has had one somewhat popular song ("Bang, Bang"), but it does not seem to have charted or received any awards; as such, it does not seem that the subject meets WP:MUSICBIO. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nom -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:55, 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. The one "keep" does not address the policy-based reasons advanced for deletion.  Sandstein  09:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Centaur family of Xanth[edit]

Centaur family of Xanth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This topic does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Much like my response in the AFD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goblin family of Xanth, this is just a lot of unsourced fancruft on some minor fictional characters. And, much like that article, I don't think that it should be used as a redirect, as I don't believe the term "Centaur Family of Xanth" was a term used before this article, and the only results coming from searching that phrase only come from mirrors and reprints of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are around 40 novels in the Xanth series and many characters in this family tree have been major characters in the novels. I was not around to save Goblin family of Xanth which should have been kept for the same reason. So unless every fictional family tree on Wikipedia is getting deleted, then a family tree which spans dozens of novels should be kept. Keeping track of the relationships in the Xanth series is easier with family trees. LA (T) @ 19:54, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not Wikipedia's job to keep track of fictional family trees without reliable sources backing up why the information presented within has notability outside of the fictional universe they exist in. Without them, they are nothing more than WP:CRUFT and belong on Wikias, not Wikipedia. So, unless there are reliable sources backing up why this entire family is notable enough to sustain an article, there is no policy-based argument for keeping it. And no, not every fictional family tree needs to be deleted, just the ones that have no sources that cause it to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not a notable concept. It is not mentioned in-depth as a family by reliable sources. We don't have non-notable family articles like this for real people, let alone imaginary ones.--Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 01:59, 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.  Sandstein  09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greater mummy[edit]

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

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. Minor D&D monster that doesn't have enough notability to sustain an article. It first appeared in 2nd AD&D, so that is the list it should be merged to. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Eclipses[edit]

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

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

This fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Extremely minor fictional organization. The articles doesn't even try to make a claim of notability, as even it admits the group was only ever even mentioned in two primary articles. Looking around online, I can find no mention of this group at all outside of mirrors of this article. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons nonhuman deities#Other deities. BOZ (talk) 03:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure that there's much worth merging (there's already a mention of the group at the target article, and that seems sufficient) but if people would prefer a merge/redirect, I suppose that's not a problem. I don't think it's really necessary, though. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire and storm: Seriously? The creator of this grotesquely NN article ought to get a troutslap (that is, if he hadn't been an ephemeral editor with only eight articlespace edits over a decade ago). Speaking as a one-time published RPG writer, do I get to have Wikipedia articles not merely for the one-off articles I wrote, but for individual concepts within those articles? Of course not; that's absurd. Ravenswing 13:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:34, 5 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 redirect to DNA bank as alternate spelling. (Non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Bank[edit]

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

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

topic already exists at DNA bank. Can't delete per WP:A10 because it was not recently deleted. I would suggest a merge, but the article is so short that it contains little meaningful information. Icebob99 (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to DNA bank as an alternate spelling, or delete. As an article, it is wholly redundant with DNA bank. --Mark viking (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to DNA bank. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:57, 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.  Sandstein  08:54, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The no.1 Shoal of China Vacation Area resort[edit]

The no.1 Shoal of China Vacation Area resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE as the whole article is written as a travel guide for a beach. -KAP03 (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Seems to be just a local beach. Searching on the name turns up nothing, the address cannot be found, and the coords were completely wrong, miles inland. But I pulled an address, 广东省茂名市茂港区海滨二路, from one of the sources and it finds a coastal location where there is this: China No.1 Beach Danshuiyu, 中国第一滩. Just a local beach in Dianbai District, nothing special, not notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On fixing the coords I noticed the Chinese name is in the article, which would have saved me some time if I had noticed it earlier. The English is full of errors and poor writing; if you want to find sources best to search on the Chinese name, or on "China No.1 Beach Danshuiyu" which turns up a few things.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Badly overwritten in a peacock style, there are no sources that proves this place is notable. It seems to be a local, ordinary beach. It's certainly no Bali or Boracay. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:09, 3 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scugnizzo[edit]

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

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

Much more of a definition than an article; would be more at home on Wiktionary. Okamialvis (talk) 21:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:NOT#DICT -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#DICT. There's not enough here to be worth a merge. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 06:22, 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 merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters.  Sandstein  09:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Living Wall (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Living Wall (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability requirements for fictional characters. Okamialvis (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the main article. Without notability being established, this had no need to exist. TTN (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. The only non-primary source available is the single "top ten" style list already present in the article. Its a very trivial mention, and as a singular source, is not enough to establish notability. 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.45.226 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as per above. BOZ (talk) 03:25, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Lundberg[edit]

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

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

non notable author: Two books, one in 6 libraries, the other in only 2. DGG ( talk ) 20:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:AUTHOR. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no evidence of passing either WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. A writer gets a Wikipedia article when he's the subject of enough reliable source coverage in media to pass our inclusion and sourcing rules — but Lundberg is the author, not the subject, of both of the references here, and even in a ProQuest search all I can find is six glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in articles about other things. That's not the depth of RS coverage that it takes, and people do not get to self-publish their own "referencing" about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Outtakes[edit]

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

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

PROD removed by author stating that the album is notable. Still fails NALBUM and GNG as my PROD stands. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 19:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:35, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roberts (author)[edit]

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

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

non notable author -- a few self-published books with trivial reviews. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article does not meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Okamialvis (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I concur, he's not significantly substantiated with the needed substance and there's nothing convincing in what the article conveys as information, therefore this is all too trivial. SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not ready for prime time. His books all appear self-published and there don't appear to be sufficient sources in the article or available elsewhere to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 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.  Sandstein  10:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Devi (2017 film)[edit]

Devi (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:FUTURE and WP:TOOSOON by being about a unreleased movie. It also fails WP:GNG because there is only one source verifying its existence. KAP03 (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of GNG pass Spiderone 19:20, 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. The one "keep" does not address the reasons for deletion.  Sandstein  10:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sibusiso Mashiloane[edit]

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

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

Looks as case of WP:TOSOON. Recent (2014) musical graduate with no significant coverage. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there's some non-English sources I'm missing. TimothyJosephWood 19:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete Hi there I'm listening why do you want to delete the article instead of helping improving it?... I just posted it now and still working on it Bobbyshabangu _talk 19:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobbyshabangu, it doesn't appear, at least from what I could find, that there was sustained coverage of the individual in reliable sources. If it appears that the article is likely to be deleted, and you would like extended time to continue to work on it, you may want to request it be moved to a draft rather than being deleted. TimothyJosephWood 20:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 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.  Sandstein  09:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inspecta[edit]

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Harrias because the creator (User:Yousef.Alipour, WP:SPA) contested it at talk; unfortunately I cannot credit Harrias with good judgement, as the creator's argument at Talk:Inspecta show total lack of understanding of the notability guidelines I clearly linked in my PROD ("Inspecta has already have pages in two other languages... The company is growing fast and it's good to let other know about in the international language... You can easily find information about almost any company in wiki with even less than 100 employee" - those are textbook examples from Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions). Now we have to waste our time with this here. Sigh. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. PS. Ping User:Anarchyte who suggested speedy deletion before my prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The guidelines do not require the objection to be a good one, merely that it exists. Read Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators before insulting people's judgement. Harrias ^talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That notwithstanding, this article does not meet the notability requirements in my opinion, and cursory Google searches don't throw up anything that suggests otherwise. Harrias ^talk 20:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• SNOW Delete as quite clearly A7 material and the obvious intents of a PR web listing, hence delete by our policies alone. SwisterTwister talk 23:52, 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  08:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Austro-Hungarian Society[edit]

Oxford University Austro-Hungarian Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:J31ox (creator, WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like spam. PS. Ping User:Superbeecat who nominated it for speedy before my prod. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as simply a business listing and there's absolutely no established independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 19:10, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it's pure online promotion and not notable. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Three are occasional exceptions, but undergraduate societies are generally NN. I see no exception here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This looks like a non notable student club to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:43, 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. Sam Walton (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Prill[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced, autobiography has "appeared" on three shows no evidence to such suggest they meet WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 19:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced BLP fails WP:V, WP:BLP. As written, little indication the subject would pas WP:CREATIVE anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 20:08, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ekol Logistics[edit]

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

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " Iteɪ was deprodded by User:Mean as custard with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as complete advertising and there's all the signs: Multiple single-focused accounts, advertising information and the sheer fact there's blatancy of keeping that. SwisterTwister talk 19:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable or advert, also remains too unsourced.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 02:54, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lee Jepsen[edit]

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

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

Jepsen was Miss Nebraska. That is her only semi-notable accomplishment, and that alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. The statements about her performance at Miss America probably do not rise to adding to her notability, and they are entirely unsourced. The only source on the article at present does not even related to her at all, it is a directory that shows that her borther was a semi-accomplished athletie in Nebraska. My search for sources showed up a picture in the John F. Kennedy papers of her giving a baton to a presidential aid to give to Caroline Kennedy. This article is an example of why we should not keep articles on minor people who have one thing that brings them close to notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I recall we had a discussion about writing up some sort of [Wikipedia:Notability (beauty pageants participants)]], and I found Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beauty_Pageants#Notability_guideline from last year. I agree with the final comment there (Winners of Miss State or Miss State USA are not automatically notable), and I support deletion as this fails GNG. However, I'll also point out that we accept some other professions, like sportspeople, and call them notable even if they fail GNG, but have participated in sport events that IMHO are no more significant that such regional beauty pageants. Such double standards should be discussed further, at project-wide level, IMHO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - This is almost unsourced as the citation doesn't mention Jepsen at all (there is a broken inline URL citation to missnebraska.org) and mention of her brother is borderline OR (how do we know they are siblings). With a better citation about the pageant, I think it is BLP1E, and is better deleted or as a redirect to Miss Nebraska (the relevant info is already on that page so no merge is necessary). @Johnpacklambert:, can I ask what you mean by, "This article is an example of why we should not keep articles on minor people who have one thing that brings them close to notability."? I'm very interested in "minor people" and am curious if you could elaborate. Feel free to reply on my talk page, if that would be more appropriate. Thank you, Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- nothing stands out about this pageant winner & reads like a tribute page. RE: other areas: I'd say that's the problem with various SNGs that get pushed through by people passionate on the topic. Luckily, in the area of pageant contestants the consensus has evolved to the point that it reflects the ability (or inability) to build NPOV articles on the subjects. A state-level pageant win alone is almost never enough to sustain a BIO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 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 redirect to Miss Nebraska. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Howell[edit]

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

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

While this looks like a well sourced article, it is exactly the type of article the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Beauty Pageants talk page RfC has determined we do not need. All Howell has done so far is win Miss Nebraska. This in an d of itself is not enough to establish her notability. None of the sources are either outside of local sources covering her competition, some of them when she was still in high school in extremely local coverage, press releases, passing mentions or the like. Nothing moves beyond her lone blip of being Miss Nebraska, and any information related to this can be included on the Miss Nebraska page. There is no reason to keep this article at present. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- routine coverage and trivia. Nothing stands out about this pageant contestant, thus delete per prior outcomes. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Was looking at talk page on Wikiproject Beauty Contests and there didn't seem to be any consensus yet on deleting state champions. In my mind, if this is the subject's only achievement/misdeed, and the subject receives only local media coverage, they fail the test for notability. Rogermx (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect: Point towards Miss Nebraska. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and I question WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SUSTAINED, and WP:NOTTEMPORARY as to why this shouldn't be a standalone article. GauchoDude (talk) 18:38, 5 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty20 Construction Cloud[edit]

Twenty20 Construction Cloud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Declined CSD. Completely unsourced article, Fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 18:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not really sure why this is being considered for deletion. Twenty20 Constructioni Cloud is a viable construction software solution much like Procore or Timberline by Sage. Both of which have Wiki pages. Other than the fact that this is a newer software solution, the information is still relevant, accurate and although possibly has some advertising undertones, it is the true history of this product. There were no links to the website or product pages. No offers and no contact information. I am happy to make modifications if recommended. Any suggestions are appreciated

Brant.wadsworth (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Brant.wadsworth[reply]

comment just because a competitor has an article doesn't mean that any other business in that line meets criteria. Notability is based on the subject of the article, not necessarily the business they are in. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unsourced, promo fluff. I also agree with Dialectric about the possibility of an SPA. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• Delete: Per nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:39, 5 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) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kenzie Ziegler[edit]

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

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

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

This article was created by socks. The original article, Mackenzie Ziegler, which also involved sock puppetry, was created two years ago. It was speedied a few times and then deleted per a discussion, recreated yet again and speedied. I then salted it. There have been updates to the article because of the passing years. This is a procedural nomination. I express no view on whether the subject is sufficiently notable but dump it back in the community's lap for yet another discussion. For anyone searching for significant coverage in reliable sources, you'd be better off usiing Mackenzie as the first name rather than Kenzie. Kenzie was used only to avoid the salting.Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I think that Mackenzie Ziegler is now notable. She has 5.8 million Instagram followers and significant other social media; she was a main character on a successful reality TV show for several years; she has acted on scripted TV shows; she has released some popular songs/videos; she has modeled for some major advertising campaigns; and she has attracted a considerable amount of press. More than 3,000 Google "News" sources refer to her. *However*, the article is incorrectly named: It should be Mackenzie, not Kenzie. All WP:Reliable sources and nearly all "news" sources refer to this subject as "Mackenzie", and she uses "Mackenzie" or "Mack Z" professionally. See: Mackenzie Ziegler references vs. Kenzie Ziegler references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In my opinion, Mackenzie Ziegler has become sufficiently notable to warrant keeping the article, using the name Mackenzie Ziegler as the title. Somambulant1 (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as this person has attracted a lot of press, performed regularly on television for six years and has a very large social media following. Also, the name of the article should be moved to her more frequently used name, "Mackenzie Ziegler". Jack1956 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Mackenzie Ziegler. She meets notability guidelines. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I had typed a long !vote with sources then the browser died.  :( There are sources from the International Business Times, 'Daily Telegraph (Australia), Teen Vogue, news organisations (TV and print) in Pittsburg, and The Today Show, some not in the article, and I am convinced that Mackenzie Ziegler is notable under WP policy. Article should be moved immediately – I agree with Newyorkbrad's comments at his talk page and do not see a good reason to delay moving the article to the correct title, though the potential for BLP harm is low. The article has referencing issues and is so-tagged for too many SPS, but that is a reason to edit, not delete. No views on previous versions or salting, but I am confident that there will be an article on Ziegler soon, even if this one is deleted as the trend of ongoing coverage is clear. I have seen sources speculating about dating which will only increase as she continues through her teen years so strong BLP warnings may be needed and ongoing monitoring of content, but these are not reasons to delete either. EdChem (talk) 22:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil D. Jahraus[edit]

Cecil D. Jahraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I could only locate obituary articles while searching for sources. Article does not meet the criteria for WP:GNG Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 17:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - only finding obits and a couple of press releases announcing purchase of small newspapers. Not meeting WP:NOTE.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. GauchoDude (talk) 18:48, 5 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:22, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of footballers born in Yugoslavia who played for other national teams[edit]

List of footballers born in Yugoslavia who played for other national teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions 1,2,3,6, and 7 and fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. KAP03 (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French born footballers who have played for other national teams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of footballers born in Argentina who have played for other national teams

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lists of this type are unnecessary, as the topic of anyone playing any sport for any nation other than the nation of their birth is not notable. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unless strong evidence is brought forward that footballers playing for a country other than the one that they were born in is an inherently notable topic, this will fail LISTN. Some of these players didn't even have the option to play for Yugoslavia as it had ceased to exist by the time they started their careers. Spiderone 17:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list title was initially focused on the list of players born in the territory of what was once Yugoslavia but someone changed and simplified the title some time ago. The focus is players which were born on that territory regardless of being at time of Yugoslavia, or after. The case it to demonstrate the large number of players born there which contibuted, or still play, in other national teams outside that territory. FkpCascais (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notabile Grammarphile (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – It is me who created the article and I have been updating it. I was personally contacted in the past by sports journalists who said the list was unique and very usefull for them. I see all this sort of lists are nominated for deletion and seems they will be deleted by the tendency of the votes to this moment. Because of diverse reasons, the players left the territory of what was once a united country named Yugoslavia and accepted to represent other countries. This way they are all listed here along the countries they represent and the mention of the exact birthplace. It is possible to analise it in several was, it is possible to see tendencies, etc. This list is, as far as I know, unique on the internet. I think Wikipedia will loose a list which had some value and interess on behalve of football analists and journalists. FkpCascais (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with you keeping your own list on a different Wiki-based website. At the moment, I'm not seeing any valid reason to keep this list on Wikipedia; the arguments given are just WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. I understand why some might find the list interesting but I just don't think that there can be a precedent for these sorts of lists to exist. Spiderone 19:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I fully understand, no problem whatsoever. In my personal view (admting I am an football statistics enthusiast) I find these lists usefull football-related information, but if the community decides otherwise, I fully understand. Cheers, FkpCascais (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per other delete comments above. However, I think that this is a cool project and that the article's creator should keep a record of it somewhere.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 18:49, 5 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. No salting, as it's not been deleted previously. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aleshan syndrome[edit]

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

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

Hoax. No Google Books or Google Scholar results for this "syndrome", also no Google results I could find other than Wikipedia mirrors and this apparent medical exam where it is listed as a possible (and almost certainly wrong) answer to a question. Everymorning (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt, nice catch! In addition to the "nothings" above, nothing in pubmed, nothing in Psycnet. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. Completely anecdotal and unscientific. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Citobun (talk) 12:25, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnoentomology (journal)[edit]

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

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." DePRODded by article creator after adding a statement to the article that the journal will be added in the "Czech Natural Bibliography", a minor non-selective database. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails GNG and NJOURNAL. Jytdog (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, sorry. Needs more indexing and uptake before it can have an article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. Not listed in any selective databases, and no impact factor - fails NJOURNALS. No coverage in reliable sources - fails WP:GNG. Also, this journal has only produced one issue (as far as I can tell - Volume 1), and since it opened its doors only very recently, in 2016, this is probably a case of WP:TOOSOON for garnering any notablity per NJOURNALS or GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:50, 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 deletion (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 14:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jithin Lal K[edit]

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

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

There is no indication of importance, no references and the only links used are the subject's facebook page. Poorly written and formatted. HeyJude70 (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possible CSD A7: An unreferenced biography bristling with peacockery (sample: "Born on the same day as Jesus Christ, the kid was a prodigy from childhood itself and teachers assured his parents, he will become a man whose name will be written in golden letters in history."). At core, an undergraduate student who has created some course syllabus apps. Fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes due to inexperience of author please pardon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajay Sivaprasad (talk • contribs) 12:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable computer developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would have gone for a CSD. Just some developer promoting himself. Jupitus Smart 09:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Started CSD. The article is tagged for speedy deletion under G11. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 13:28, 5 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:08, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Supranational[edit]

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

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

Totally unsourced article about a brand new beauty pageant for men, previously deleted at AfD as Mister Supranational 2016 (the male counterpart to equally non-notable Miss Supranational, an article that has been deleted multiple times, and recreated almost as many times). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 10:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article is not sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If the article clears A7 (organized event with no assertion of notability), it doesn't do it by much. An initial search brings up Times of India coverage for the 2016 pageant, but TOI reports on almost every pageant. Not much to work with. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's owned by the same people as Miss Supranational I decided to send it to AfD instead of tagging it for speedy deletion, in order to have the non-notability of the pageant properly established. Which in my experience makes it easier to get recreations of the article, of which there no doubt will be quite a few (see Miss Supranational), deleted. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay with that, so delete. Further searching for reliable source coverage gets only photos with brief mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article did not meet WP:GNG and WP:EVENT.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- promotional trivia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:01, 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 no consensus. There are many things which may be non-neutral about this article, starting with the title, but it is not clear from the discussion that these problems warrant deletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)[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)).

Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT. It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014. Ymblanter (talk) 09:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It's a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine), which in turn was nothing but a POV content fork of material already existing in other articles. I nominated this article for speedy deletion as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD (i.e. CSD G4), but the speedy was declined with the claim that the new article differed substantially from the previous one. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 09:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which other articles is this material already existing? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Ymblanter (09:22, 27 December 2016) said: "It is based on just one document - a statement of the Verkhovna Rada from 2014 (Ref.3) which just contains a (short) list of localitis not under Ukrainian control, and the rest is POV and original research. Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014." My reply is that you did not go throuh the article if you state something like this. Crimea is considered Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia (While Donetsk and Luhansk regions are considered uncontrolled). Here is a reference indicated in article which you nominated for deletion without reason: UN Resolution A/RES/68/262. So it is not based on Ukrainian Government document only as you stated. Furthermore, you mentioned that "Note that the localities which are currently not under the Ukrainian control are not the same as in 2014". Please note that main law has several extensions which I will introduce later, however it cannot be a reason for deletion, main law and UN resolution should be enough for a start (new article). If you have subjective opinion (1.you have been the first one to urgently nominate my article for deletion and 2. for some reason 'did not see other references' to blame article in being low-quality)

Second point you mentioned is "Whereas such an article can in principle exist, the current one, created by a user without previous contribution and full of POV language (part of which I removed) is a good example of WP:NOT".

- I do not agree with this statement. Can you please show me at least one article where those tables are presented? If United Nations reports are considered " original research" as you stated, than it is your subjective opinion.

Dear Thomas.W , if you will check edit history, you will see that article was checked by several experienced users and none of them nominated it for deletion. What is more, your request for fast deletion was denied. Please take it into account when reverting edits of other wikipedians without obvious reason. Thank you. Yours, Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 10:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

@Жовтневе багаття: You seem to have misunderstood what Wikipedia is and how Wikipedia works: it's an encyclopaedia, not a blog, other editors making minor changes to an article but not nominating it for deletion does not mean that they endorse the article and it's content, the speedy deletion being declined does not mean it was approved in any way, it only means that it wasn't sufficiently similar to the previous version to be speedied as WP:CSD G4, and article creators can not request that their creations be protected to prevent others from editing it, as you requested for this article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to user space (Wikipedia:Userfication). The current page is not an article, it is a list. In its current form, it is not ready to be seen by the public. But the material may be worth keeping because it has potential to be useful at some point — it just needs more work, or more time. If the material were moved to Жовтневе багаття's user space, he/she would have the freedom to experiment with different ways of improving the list. One obvious improvement would be to put in Wikilinks to all the place names that are the subject of Wikipedia articles. Bearing in mind that the native language in most of these places is Russian (not Ukrainian), it would be sensible to have both the Russian and Ukrainian spelling of each place. (One of the objectionable POV pushes of both Ukrainian and Russian fascists is the view that everyone whose native language is Russian is Russian; many people from Eastern, Central and Southern Ukraine object to this POV.) Another possible improvement would be to give the month and year, each locality started and stopped being occupied/uncontrolled; some localities have been liberated, and some have not; these would all need referencing to sources. I think this list has the potential to be something worth keeping; it just needs a lot of work, and userfication seems a plausible route.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: Why move to user space? It's nothing but a POV content fork, duplicating other articles, including all of ATO zone, and is also totally outdated, being based on data from November 2014. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: Point taken about the part that was cut-and-pasted from the article on ATO zone; I have deleted that part. You asked why move to user space - see post of 13:07, 27 December 2016.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I noticed that you deleted the part of the article that was copied directly from ATO zone, but that doesn't help much, since what's left of the article is nothing but a totally outdated, and far less user friendly, version of the status map in War in Donbass (which was last updated in January 2016). So even what's left of this article is nothing but a POV content fork of other articles (with the POV part of it being the name of the article: "Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine", as opposed to the more neutral "War in Donbass"...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 13:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas.W: you can argue that the remainder is a content fork of File:Map of the war in Donbass.svg, but I do not see what else it is a content fork of. If it is moved to user-space, then its creator can work on it. As a list it has potential. But it needs a lot of work. Doing this work would be good for the user: teaching him/her how to present information is a useful, neutral POV manner. If the user were successful,the list could then be moved back into article-space. If the user were unsuccessful, then he/she might still have learned something. Either way, it is a gain for Wikipedia; we might get a good list article, and we would help self-educate a new user.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should all lists be moved to user spaces? Thank you. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK of Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present). 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a POV fork. It is a list; see for example, List of states and territories of the United States. Do you consider that to be a POV fork of United States?-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content fork, because it contains only content that is already covered in better context in the other article, and it is POV because the title includes the Ukrainian government's preferred formulation "temporarily occupied", which we shouldn't use here per WP:CRYSTAL because none of us knows whether this occupation will turn out to be temporary. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If occupation is not temporary, this is not an occupation? Very interesting logic. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RECENTISM. Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. because:

1. Original content which is not presented in any other article. Ymblanter and Thomas.W claim that it is copy. Please present an article where not just occupied region is in general described, but a where list with exact names of towns and villages is presented. If you cannot do that, then please, Thomas W., stop writing all the same things for many times under each comment of Toddy1. Everyone has already understood that it is 'fork' as you said. Stop this harassment.

2. Strong references (Two United Nations resolution and Law of Gov. of Ukraine). Ymblanter, you mentioned that it has only Gov. ref., no it is not true. do not mislead other Wiki users.

86.17.222.157, please show me (as per your claim) "content that is already covered in better context in the other article".

User Chris Troutman said: "Articles like these, written by partisans, shouldn't exist.". - here: unreasonable "vote", with offense to author.

3. User Ymblanter is using previous article deletion precedent as a "reason" to remove this article as well, even despite it is a good database with significant improvements.

4. it was check by other experienced wiki users and for some reason none of them has critisised author, content as well none of then applied for its deletion. They only updated article and fixed some errors which means they in general has nothing oppose this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.28.165.149 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No good reasons for deletion were presented. For those claiming that it is a copy of content in article ATO zone, please note that both tables are added to both articles by me. I have tried to delete table called List of landmarks bordering with ATO zone and to move it to ATO zone article (check edit log of that article, table which you claim is copied in my other article (occupied territories) is added by me, I did not copy anything, both are my original content which was never on Wikipedia before), but when I was trying to delete this table from Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present), some users without explanation reverted my useful changes because in system it looked like huge deletion of information. Please stop to blame me in copypasting, first check who is an author and then it minus one more "argument" you used for deletion of this article. Жовтневе багаття — Preceding unsigned comment added by Жовтневе багаття (talk • contribs) 04:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  This user voted three times, two times as himself and once as IP--Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Please note that proposal for deletion is not calculated solely by number of votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.92.129.158 (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article deals with the (temporary) status of the territories as envisaged by the Ukrainian law. Its existence is both justified and needed.--Kober^Talk 15:39, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete appears to simply be a recreation of the previously AfD'ed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which was closed just weeks ago. I see no reason to rehash this. I've requested a speedy deletion as recreated material. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this is not exactly recreation, otherwise I would have speedy deleted it myself.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I see. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One (actually, more) of the arguments there:

"Weak delete. If the phrase "temporarily occupied territories" carries any legal connotation within Ukraine, the article could be kept with extensive editing to remove POV bias.See Free area of the Republic of China for a possible analogous case. Absent this, however, the article should be deleted. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 20:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)"

For start, this issue is amended in a current article. Then, how much time should pass until we will be able to see the list of occupied territories of Ukraine? Constantinehuk (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This is a useful list, with the potential to provide links to useful pages on individual territories. Claims of POV appear unjustified, as it is an objective list of actual places which have recently changed hands. These facts are not in dispute. It would also be hard to argue that the situation isn't volatile, or that those territories' futures are in any way certain. A list demarcating the regions of volatility is a good and useful resource for an encyclopedia to have. We should keep it, and add to it. TTK (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  This is not a list of territories which recently changed hands. This is a list of territories which in 2014 were considered by the Verkhovna Rada as "occupied by terrorists". Things changed a lot since 2014, and even then the list was not particularly reliable.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  What things changed? Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Ymblanter, your claims has nothing constructive. please do not disinform other wiki users and check article itself before saying "occupied by terrorists". This citation is not from my article or anywhere else, please stop adding your POV as something that is included to my article material. --Жовтневе багаття (talk)

• Speedy Delete WP:G4 - As per nomination. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Very useful list. Please do not refer to its creator background - no ad hominem needed. If you have examples of his "POV language" please provide them. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good and sustainable article. Deletion of previous article cannot be reason to delete this one. database recognized by united nations is good contribution to encyclopedia. Well done - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.97.50.159 (talk • contribs)

• Note to closing admin: The numerous IP's here all geolocate to the same place (Shenzhen, Guangdong, China), so I suspect there's socking going on here... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:51, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see one such attempt - right here. Would you mind showing the others? Constantinehuk (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14.28.165.149 and 113.92.129.158 also geolocate to Shenzhen, but I am many thousands of kilometres/miles away in Watford, England. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

113.92.129.158 is not pro-creator. I am in continental Europe too. I am taking the liberty to clarify some mess here then. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that 113.92.129.158 was pro-creator, but simply that someone commented here from that IP address, as there were also comments from editors identified by two other IP addresses from Shenzhen. It would be helpful if one or more of those editors could clarify whether it was simply a coincidence that they are in the same city or whether two or three of those comments were from the same person. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of significant article update on Jan 01, 2017[edit]

Since some users in this AfD discussion make irritative claims to discredit article information (usually with weak or even without justified reasons), I would like to ask to you to go through it first and only afterwards make any statements. Please do not mislead other Wiki users with fake information which you claim is included in article. Thank you. --Жовтневе багаття (talk

Thank you for linking territories to their pages. This is exactly what I was hoping for. TTK (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- this has appearance of being a government publication that is likewise cited to primary sources. It's unclear what encyclopedic value this list provides. As noted above, these territories are addressed in another article, so delete as unnecessary content fork. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good article, similar to articles about accupied territories of Moldova, Japan or Georgia. I do not see any reasons for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.4.246 (talk) 13:12, 3 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. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AJAI VASUDEV[edit]

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

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

A case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E: Recreation of a deleted article Ajai Vasudev under different title. I failed to find any evidence to support his part as an associate director in Proprietors: Kammath & Kammath and Pokkiri Raja and I also can't find anything about his upcoming film Chunkzz so I suggest Delete or Redirect to Rajadhiraja or draftify as it was earlier and wait until his second film is released. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I'm in agreement with GSS-1987 (talk · contribs). I think he may be just on the cusp of meeting notability but currently does not satisfy it. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Delete - still not notable; delete per nom. It appears that the user has been trying to recreate this article at least five times now in the last five days! Spiderone 19:17, 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 keep. This AfD seems to have been filed in error - the filing editor is arguing in favour of keeping, not deletion. There were a couple of !votes for speedy deletion, but I have declined the speedy deletion request for the reasons I gave in my comment below. If deletion is still desired, please open a new deletion discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Conservative Party for Reform[edit]

New Conservative Party for Reform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

New Conservative Party for Reform is a registered parliamentary group and a de facto political party with 30 seats in National Assembly. It will be a de jure party in 30 days. I think that this article is obviously notable. 조국 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY DELETE per CSD A7 Twitbookspacetube (talk) 07:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 and per WP:CRYSTALBALL Wikipedia is not a crystal ball to predict future. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 07:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, It is a parliamentary group in South Korea. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not applicable.조국 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Every South Korean registered parliamentary group is notable. 조국 (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've declined the request for speedy deletion. This party is in the news now, and from a brief inspection appears to be a major new party, not some fringe thing. Given how tumultuous South Korean politics has been over the last few weeks, this should probably not be surprising. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:25, 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. (non-admin closure) —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Lillemets[edit]

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

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

Doesn't conform to WP:BIO. Reads like an advert in current form. Devopam (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:NPOL #1. The article is pretty neutral, but deletion generally isn't the right way to address issues with tone in short articles on notable subjects. EricEnfermero (Talk) 07:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a member the Swedish parliament and therefore clearly meets our notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article on an elected parliamentarian, referenced to the Riksdag website. Meets criterion 1 of WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 11:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:POLITICIAN, and this reads, and read when nominated, nothing at all like an advert. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As an MEP, plus the additional material available in her Swedish language article ready to be added here. Article needs expansion, not deletion. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 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 speedy delete as obviously invented, pure vandalism/blatant hoax. TimothyJosephWood 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Hopkins-WashU Meme War of 2016[edit]

The Hopkins-WashU Meme War of 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nothing notable. CSD would apply, but anons keep reverting that. Two facebook groups went to war and then that makes it important Nolelover ^{Talk·Contribs} 06:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete under any of G2, G3, A11. Block. Robert McClenon (talk)
• Delete Non-notable edit war which seems to have spilled over to this Wikipedia article. Jim1138 (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable Internet activity with no independent sources provided. WP:CSD#A11 appears to apply here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Jacobs[edit]

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

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

For a BLP this does not seem to suitably demonstrate notability. One ref is a blog, and the other is about a relationship that is not clearly notable. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy weights in sports[edit]

Sure, the page needs some better footnotes, but this attorney is representing some huge athletes in some rather big-time cases in terms of sports eligibility. Folks need to be able to locate specialists and cutting this page give far too much power to the powerful. It seems like a prudent and notable page for Wikipedia and extra references, requested, have been called for directly. Rauterkus (talk) 21:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not sure what this is in reference to but Wikipedia isn't a business directory so I'm not sure how not deleting this so people can "find a specialist" is a relevant reason to contest deletion? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

• Keep Most of the sources linked in the article are about the athletes he represented rather than Jones himself, but the article subject does pass WP:GNG on coverage in WP:RS alone. USA Today profiled him back in 2006[4] and The Times of San Diego also profiled him last February [5]. Multiple, sustained coverage about he article subject in independent sources establishes notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Eggishorn above. GauchoDude (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would very rarely say to keep an article of this general nature about an attorney that does not show objective criteria of notability , and is based only on a listing of cases, but I think this is an exception--I think it could be the basis for a viable article. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]