< 17 November	19 November >

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

The result was delete. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sengezi Primary School[edit]

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

I don't think elementary schools are intrinsically notable. Even if they are, this subject has little evidence of existence, let alone fulfillment of WP:GNG. Its Facebook page has 0 likes, and it is only MENTIONED in passing in other Wikipedia pages. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Schools in Zimbabwe. Certainly not notable. I found it listed on a NGO data aggregator list of voting inspection stations [1], so I'm assuming it does in fact exist, but being in rural Zimbabwe it doesn't have a website. No real opposition to deletion, but if its on a list, you might as well have a redirect to it. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 23 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

League Inc.[edit]

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

Article is contested. Listed at AFD to determine consensus. Cloud9shopper (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete close to G11, the sources appear to be affiliated with the subject. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam that opens with: "The company mission is to give people the power to act every day!". 'nough said. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete as this is clearly advertising and was only ever started as such, so this should be a warning to the users involved to say advertising will not be accepted here, regardless of anything or anyone and especially if advertising motivations are why this article is apparently avidly being started. SwisterTwister talk 01:46, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think the lede says it all: "The company mission is to give people the power to act every day and live longer, healthier lives." If that's not advertising, I don't know what else it is, and the rest of the article continues in that vein. --Gronk Oz (talk) 06:08, 24 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

J. Math[edit]

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

Insufficient indication of notability. The only proven claim to fame is that he's part of Street Radio (although I also have some questions about the notability of that subject, but that's another discussion), but notability is not inherited; J. Math needs to be notable in his own right to have an article. Nothing else in this article has any references to back it up, and even if it did, it wouldn't do that much to indicate notability. The only potentially good source currently on this article is the Vibe Magazine mention; however, I actually looked up the August 2008 issue of Vibe, and Street Radio gets only the briefest of brief mentions in that issue (page 46) -- certainly not enough to indicate notability. I did some thorough searching but I really couldn't find any other credible/verifiable sources indicating that J. Math might be notable. IagoQnsi (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've also started an AfD for the related article Street Radio. -IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Page has been updated with many new sources and information regarding the issues raised above. J. Math's main point of notability is that as a songwriter for notable artists like 50 Cent, Wu-Tang Clan, Cam'ron, Rick Ross, Wu-Tang Clan, Styles P, and many more. He is credited as such on multiple major label albums that have placed on Billboard charts internationally, which I have updated the page with. He is also credited as such for the RIAA gold certified album "Strength and Loyalty" by Bone Thugs-n-Harmony.

Another point of notability is that he often is credited with other roles, specifically A&R and mixing engineer, and has been integrally involved with many major label or notable independent label releases, including 2Pac, Wu-Tang Clan, and Styles P. I updated the page with these credits and included many online sources, while using the liner notes from these albums to confirm. I also found interviews with J. Math and included a couple quotes regarding the development of these albums.Kairaba (talk) 05:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Kairaba[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSBIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 23:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ I'm not sure why above user thinks the subject of this article fails WP:MUSBIO. This notability standard clearly states that "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria:" and then it lists 12 different points of notability. The article says someone may be notable if they meet at least 1 criteria, and I have shown that the subject of the article meets at least 4 of those 12. I will list them and their satisfactions here for convenience.

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

- I referenced an article from Vibe Magazine which is entitled "Reasons why hip-hop isn't dead".  That article goes on to list only 5 notable producers/composers of which J. Math is one. 
- I referenced an a full page article in Scratch Magazine that significantly covers J. Math by name as well as some history around his career.  
- I referenced a hiphopdx.com article that heavily reference and quotes J. Math.
- I referenced a sohh.com article that heavily reference and quotes J. Math.

2. Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

- I updated the page with Billboard charts (Top 200, Hot 100) that list J. Math as a composer on at least 5 different songs by notable artists, such as 2Pac, Wu-Tang Clan, and G-Unit.

3. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

- I updated the page to reflect that J. Math is listed as a composer on the RIAA gold certified album "Strength and Loyalty" by Bone Thugs-n-Harmony.

11. Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.

- J. Math is listed as a composer on G-Unit's "I Like The Way She Do It", which was in heavy rotation on national radio and the music video aired regularly on MTV.

Kairaba (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Kairaba Duplicate keep !voye. Struck off Nordic Nightfury 10:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Kairaba's has added sources to demonstrate that music the article subject has contributed to is certainly notable, not every contributor to a (for example) #95 single inherits notability from that contribution. If there was significant coverage in WP:RS of this artist himself, as opposed to the projects he's worked on, then I would agree with keeping it. Kairaba is obviously a fan, and there's nothing wrong with fans creating articles about the subjects of their fandom (this would be a rather sparse project without those contributions, after all) but there is a reason for the notability guidelines.Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and unconvincing and in fact blatant advertising in both information and sources, regardless of any "hopeful improvements" because there are in fact none. SwisterTwister talk 07:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kairaba, you are allowed only one vote. Nordic Nightfury 10:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Kairaba's efforts are laudable, this simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:45, 5 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 Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) clpo13_(talk) 19:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All-terrain tyre[edit]

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

Unsourced stub with barely-paraphrased web content. Will be covered in Off-road tire (which I'm working on), barring further deletionism. Jergling (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but should I have just redirected this? That should have been my first question. I'm not inclined to wipe an entire page without consensus. Jergling (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would've sufficed, there's no consensus needed when there's barely anything here as it is. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:CHEAP and close this, so we can get onto more difficult issues. Bearian (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Bearian. I found another identical article and redirected that one, so I'll do the same to this one as well. I won't waste the admins' time! -Jergling (talk) 15:49, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Herold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete and Salt as this has been restarted despite, not only a speedy G11 before, but an AfD Delete close last year with clear consensus, and there's literally nothing better from this article from when it was last deleted, searches unsurprisingly found triviality, and that's exactly what the listed sources are, either trivial PR or republished PR interviews, no actual substance. Also, the last AfD showed there was paid advertising contributions from advertising-only accounts which seems to be a viable option in this current case. Regardless of publications listed, it's all still in fact PR advertising, and some of the publications classify it themselves by either explicitly saying so or otherwise in similar form. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has written 2 books and was COO of 1-800-GOT-Junk. [3 books, getting cite for the other Iliketosmoke22 (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)]Edited page to eliminate cited "promotional material". Makes a suitable stub nowIliketosmoke22 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)— Iliketosmoke22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No change from before. The coverage that exists in RS is mere mentions or quotes. "5 ways to get more from your PR efforts" did make me chuckle though. SmartSE (talk) 21:07, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clásico del Centro[edit]

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

An article about two teams that have met just four times in their history; see WP:NRIVALRY as to why this is not worthy of its own article. Furthermore, an internet search reveals that the rivalry does exist but there is certainly nothing to suggest a wider WP:GNG pass. The article consists entirely of original research also. Spiderone 22:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 21 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sungusungu[edit]

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

~~Organization stub unref since 2009~~ Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Dozens of local articles, academic treatment, even an extensive entry in the Routledge International Handbook of Rural Criminology. This is a clear keep. I added a few sources to establish notability, but will be undertaking a more significant rewrite next week. This will be one of those situations where an AfD leads to improvement of an article: as the system should work. Peace. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -topic is significant, improve article as needed. Elinruby (talk) 02:06, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 00:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clásico Mexiquense[edit]

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

This article has been tagged as failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for four years now; little has been done to address these issues. I don't believe that this 'rivalry' warrants its own article; the teams haven't met that many times; I can find very little coverage on the internet other than trivial mentions and coverage from unreliable blogs and forums. The article is almost entirely original research. Also see WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and WP:GNG needs to be met independently. Spiderone 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 21:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of GNG. Simply because two teams play each other regularly does not create a de facto rivalry. Even if there is a rivalry, it has to be demonstrated that this has received significant, reliable coverage as a notion in itself, not simply the synthesis of a series of match reports. Fenix down (talk) 09:40, 21 November 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. The article is now supported by more than one reliable source, which appears to have been the main concern for the delete !voters. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 18:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fake news websites[edit]

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

I'm not sure this list is notable enough to warrant it's own article. It might be, but I'd like to see what other folks opinions are. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure why the opinion of Melissa Zimdars (who is she by the way?) warrants its own article; this article will always be based on one source alone and therefore fails WP:GNG. Spiderone 21:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:LISTCRITERIA. "Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources." This one isn't. Narky Blert (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to fake news website. None on the list are independently notable on their own by themselves for their own standalone article. And together as a list they haven't yet received independent analysis or meta analysis from enough separate secondary sources to merit inclusion on this particular page. Best to just continue discussing them and their impact in paragraph format instead. Sagecandor (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ (see below for update) back to fake news website for now - There sure are a lot of sources talking about fake news, including lists and references to lists. I don't know why the lead of this page was changed to be specific to one list. Since that is the case, I'd probably lean towards WP:TNT without prejudice to recreation later with a more sensible inclusion criteria. But a glance at the list it draws from shows that there are actually plenty that are independently notable (not that that's a significant factor). Since it's a developing concept, perhaps the best thing is to redirect (there's nothing to merge) back to fake news website and reassess in a couple weeks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Changed to "Redirect" back to fake news website, agree with Rhododendrites well thought out comment. Sagecandor (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect per above, or merge, if the closing sysop prefers to save some material. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect to fake news website per above. Evking22 (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect to fake news website per above. Senthen.2 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's an important adjunct to fake news website. These are examples of fake news sites, otherwise it becomes an article without a subject matter. It might help to have an explanation however for each site - "fake because" which then can link to the page on their website that says that it is fake. The page is also useful for readers who want to check to see if a website they are reading is fake. It's similar to the list of satirical news websites. Criteria of inclusion need to be worked on. But if a site is listed as a fake news sites in a reliable secondary source then I think that is good enough reason to include in the list. The ones already there are included because they were listed as fake by Melissa Zimdars, a media professor at Merrimack College. Is that not a reasonable reliable secondary source? We need work on what counts as reliable secondary sources here. Expand and refine rather than delete. Also, whatever the selection criteria are, I do think we should have a list of fake news sites somewhere on wikipedia, for the same reason that we have a list of satirical news sites. The topic is highly notable. Indeed, I'm not sure why there is an AfD for this page - perhaps those here who say Delete or Merge (much the same effect) could elaborate and explain why you think it should be deleted or redirected according to wikipedia guidelines? Robert Walker (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per changed stance due to entry above. Evking22 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with other sources, no need to just use those listed by one source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of those sites are notable and there are any number of others yet to be found which would have just as much claim for inclusion. Redirect would not be appropriate since there is not (and should not be) such a list in the article. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its just like List of satirical news websites Victor Grigas (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. All the sites in the article you mentioned are notable. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 17:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After some thought, changing my sentiment on this one. Change to Keep. After seeing creation of page Liberty Writers News by Sandstein, and seeing also existing page for National Report, I see the encyclopedic value of this page. Sagecandor (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've struck my redirect !vote above and am switching to keep. Others added a few sources so as not to be based solely on Zimdars's list, so with WP:TNT no longer necessary, I changed the lead to no longer list where they came from (that's for the sources to do, after all). I also removed the table, the inappropriate external links, added/removed some wikilinks, added some sources, and pulled some content from separate articles that have been written. We now have a list based on several reliable sources like Washington Post, Columbia Journalism Review, All Things Considered, Daily Beast, U.S. News & World Reports, and there are a ton more to draw from. Still needs improvement, but it's moved to a keep for me. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per User:Robertinventor's rationale. --Fixuture (talk) 07:10, 26 November 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 is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Hennessey[edit]

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

Non-notable conservation non-profit worker. No reliable sources to be found. Google has him showing up as being quoted in a few pages related to birding, but not enough to be non-trivial under WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I basically consider this A7. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search comes up with informal smatterings but not approaching notability.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources come even close to being 3rd party indepdent reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 20 November 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 and WP:SALT both Sukuma calendar and Sukuma Calendar. Note that after this close I have also nominated Draft:Sukuma Calendar for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukuma Calendar. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuma calendar[edit]

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

Previously deleted at Sukuma Calendar as a blatant hoax. See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 51#Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology, about related articles created by the same user. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete no evidence it is true. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete - if more material were available about the festivals, those could be merged into Sukuma people, but there isn't. Further, there isn't really anything about a calendar here, even if it isn't a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the sources cited by the article does not mention this calendar. This source does, though, which makes me doubt that this is a complete hoax. A search for further sources reveals very little, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The book does use the phrase "Sukuma calendar", but it appears it was used in an informal sense. Still, no evidence there is an established 'calendar' in astronomical sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whether the Sukuma have a calendar or not, this article presents a verifiability problem as well as attributing beliefs about it to no one and not completely making sense. It provides no source for a calendar emerging "about 5,776" [sic] years ago, and I find no matches through Google or Google Scholar supporting this. The second half of the lead sentence seems to be a non sequitur. It says the Sukuma are "believed" to have advanced their astronomical skills without saying who believes this, or even why noticing the shifting nighttime sky marks an advancement of astronomical skills rather than being pretty basic. Unless they're using the Gregorian calendar, their solar festivals wouldn't be on the same Gregorian date every year; there's no mention of the months of this calendar, even how many of them there are in a given year (12? 13?), which means this article covers some details without establishing a foundation with the necessary basics. Without sources for this information, it would be impossible for anyone to fill this in or verify what's already there. Largoplazo (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article creator has left a comment at Talk:Sukuma calendar, arguing for keeping the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- For a calendar to have started in about 3600 BC, as claimed, it would have been necessary for the people to be literate; otherwise it would not have survived unchanged. This relates to an area on the southern side of Lake Victoria, an area not noted for having any ancient writing. Clearly HOAX. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All that I can find, from the references and by a search, is that the Sukuma, like many agricultural communities, have an annual cycle for their activities based on the movement of the stars, with associated ceremonies. That might be worth a mention in Sukuma people but is not notable enough for an article. All the stuff about "5776 solar years" and the "ancient Sukuma" is on an unsourced "it is believed" basis, failing WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Eckford[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, referenced entirely to primary sources except for a single glancing namecheck of his existence in a news article that isn't about him, of a single-market radio and television personality. As always, merely existing as a local media personality is not an automatic inclusion freebie -- it would be enough if he could be sourced over WP:GNG for it, but there is no automatic presumption of notability just because he exists if there's this little sourcing to support it. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

del no evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' non-jnotable radio/television personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael St. Laurent[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: as non-notbale. Completely fails GNG, few credentials and no indication of a successful career. I am sorry she/they had a short life but, just as with any other category, not all drag queens are equally notable. Quis separabit? 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources are not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 21 November 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 ) 18:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Mitchell (journalist)[edit]

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

unremarkable journalist. fails WP:JOURNALIST criteria Domdeparis (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- thats debatable, Im updating the article including quite some references to his work œæœ(Rinotova (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Rinotova the fact the talk page exists means that it is debatable. Please read WP:JOURNALIST that should help you debate the subject. --Domdeparis (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hi thanks for the feedback, we are talking about a journalist that had to escape the country of Venezuela because of political reasons, I'm currently supporting the article with more sources. (Rinotova (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I've just looked at the references and IMHO nothing proves his notability...he's a jobbing freelance journalist who was the victim of an extorsion attempt in south america (as are a lot of people especially foreign nationals). The references that you provided are not free to view and nothing in the visible bits suggest that it was for political reasons. I found his blog http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2014/03/19/a-letter-from-a-correspondent-no-longer-in-venezuela/ and he clearly says that he was forced to leave because he is well off

I quote from his blog "There is a general sense of lawlessness and anarchy, which probably created the conditions for the extortion attempt against me. Criminals rob and murder with impunity. Extortion attempts against business people are common, particularly in the border towns close to Colombia. Many pay up. Not many well-off foreigners live in Venezuela but extortion against foreigners takes place in Caracas." So I am afraid he was NOT forced to escape the country for political reasons. When you make unverifiable statements that are contradicted by the subject's own blog to try and prove notability there may be a a WP:COI problem here...

as a journalist he must fulfill at least one of the following criteria

1 The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.

2 The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

3 The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

4 The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Domdeparis (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By political reasons I mean Foreign Journalist not being able to talk against the gov, allow me to correct my statement as it stated on the article and supported by the reference, he had to leave the country due to extortions attpemts, as a British Journalist, both probable target aginst freedom of speech and victim of extorsion in VE, plus the intense amount of work, verifiable now on the new references, it is a worthy article. (Rinotova (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Rinotova In wikipedia there is no place for Original Research "both probable target aginst freedom of speech" is a quite dangerous thing to say when there is nothing in your article or any of the sources to point to this. You seem to be very invested in the publication of this page. Do you have a link to this person? there is a lot of very personal unsourced information that only a very close acquaintance would know. Please read this WP:COI and explain how you have this information and then if necessary make a full WP:DISCLOSURE on your user page. Domdeparis (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Im invested in the debate :), and went through quite some work to gather/research this info, which again, I defend as reliable, and supported as you can see in the updated inline citations. (Rinotova (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC))[reply]
comment please answer the question where did all the very personal information come from as there are no sources. This looks very much like COI editing. Domdeparis (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - citations are articles by Mitchell rather than about Mitchell. There are no citations for large chunks about Mitchell's early life. Statements about his career are actually not all sourced, either - the fact that Mitchell's work appeared in a certain journal does not mean he is employed by the journal, as is implied.Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I've been watching this and I'll concur everything is trivial and unconvincing with the article emphasizing it, therefore there's no convincing article, regardless of anything else insinuated. We're not one to keep articles simply to "hope for improvements" or "hope it maybe gets better soon". SwisterTwister talk 06:11, 2 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cameleon (IDE)[edit]

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

makes no claims of notability Domdeparis (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with all haste. As much as it pains me to delete OCaml-related material, this page is an obvious and abject mess. I used the Cameleon IDE, very briefly (it's quite horrible by modern standards), and I'm pretty sure it's got nothing whatsoever to do with the company mentioned here, which the article says is traded as... a template (PA) for a Harry Potter book ?!. Not sure if it's a joke. As for the notability of the editor itself, even in the niche of OCaml users I don't think it is terribly popular. Even if the article made a claim of notability, I doubt it could be sustained. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT. Brianga (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The Techcrunch reference talks about Cameleon (software), which is a different topic. Or redirect to the software page. Binksternet (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like Cameleon (software) involves an IDE, so a redirect would not be appropriate here. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:35, 22 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loona (band)[edit]

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

Band does not meet the WP:BAND criteria they haven't been launched yet and the project does not seem notable as yet. Domdeparis (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly promotional, no evidence of notability. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Joe Roe (talk) 10:51, 20 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luiyi Black Side[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSBIO notability cirteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As search results indcate no notability. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 00:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:29, 26 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Asher Goldstein[edit]

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

unremarkable and profoundly promotional. Even the photo is inappropriate IMHO. fails WP:BLP conditions Domdeparis (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as completely promotional in nature. This is not LinkedIn, as I so often have to remind folks. Quis separabit? 18:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn as passing WP:PROF#C5. (non-admin closure) Nsk92 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrice Beddor[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC criteria Domdeparis (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the holder of a named chair at the University of Michigan she clearly passes one of the criteria for notability of an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, named chairs qualify, per #5 at NACADEMIC. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My bad ! I missed that when I read the article as it wasn't mentioned in the sections about her career. That'll teach me to read more carefully before nominating. --Domdeparis (talk) 10:21, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Leonard-Morgan[edit]

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

Fails WP:Music and seemingly WP:GNG. Found three interviews: http://www.reelscotland.com/interview-paul-leonard-morgan-on-scoring-dredd/ http://coolmusicltd.com/composers/paul-leonard-morgan/ http://www.dewolfemusic.com/page/Paul_Leonard_Morgan 2 of which are for commercial ventures he is involved with.

additional issues unrelated to deletion: Almost reference less. Set up by SPA, has had copyvio issues from COI editors in the past (admittedly immediately reverted). Rayman60 (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Leonard-Morgan has been nominated for two BAFTAS and won one. He meets points 1 and 4 of WP:COMPOSER. There are plenty of reliable sources available, I'll start adding them to the article.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he does seem to meet WP:CREATIVE, both in terms of coverage and awards. The 3 inteviews cited in the nomination aren't the full extent of the Gnews coverage, I see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the composer of the music for The Grand Tour which is expected to be a global popular TV show. Now is not the time to delete his article. I would argue that his notability is fairly certain to increase in the near future. --Elmeter (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the kind of WP:Crystal argument we tend to discount here, even if I agree he's notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the time of nomination the article was in a really poor state. I think there has been sufficient improvement and sources added to now demonstrate notability according to WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Rajput[edit]

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

I failed to find significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources to support notability. The speedy was declined but the subject fails to pass WP:GNG. GSS (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hair stylists are not inherently notable; I can't find anything reliable to back the claims made and it seems to be a clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 22:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial coverage in few gossip columns. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 04:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's in fact no actual significance given the only thinly listed claims are for working with other people, hence advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFails WP:GNG.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 09:38, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Alharbash[edit]

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

Non-notable journalist who fails WP:GNG and WP:NJOURNALIST. Article appears to be autobiographical or at least have some conflict of interest based on the creator's username. Google search only returned Facebook hits for me, and Google News brought up no sources on the individual. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising alone, nothing at all to consider anything but a business job listing, and the fact there's no substance, emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 21:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:06, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nettech[edit]

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

The company founded by User:Spurkait, whose autobio article is now also at Afd, this Nettech has also been edited by banned sockpuppeteer account User:Maqs1231, whose article Nettech Ltd is also at Afd as part of a WP:Walled garden of spam articles. As for this Nettech, while it may well be a legitimate and worthwhile training provider, neither the copious references on the article nor what I find through my own search amount to enough significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in reliable sources for training in The Telegraph (Indian News Paper) Telegraphindia.com so that WP:GNG is passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stupido99 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swapan Purkait, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunwest Solutions, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nettech Ltd. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Telegraph India coverage seems like a decent one but we need more in-depth coverage about this entity. Additionally, article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor and unless someone takes up this task, I'll stick to delete. Anup [Talk] 22:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC
KEEP: The company is a valid consultancy and educational institute. The given list of references and citations are self explanatory , also every business company related wiki page has description about its history and services which is a primary core information. I have done a detailed verification and I'd like to inform you that all the information stated there are genuine. The points which have been raised are not applicable for this page.--Tirtha04 (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is questioning whether the company is a valid company. What is being questioned is whether it meets the verified notability requirements necessary to have an article here. Not every company meets these requirements, and therefore not every company will (or should) have an article here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fleeting coverage and passing mentions and brief name drops and small sentences but not in depth. Sagecandor (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The article is almost 8 years old. It was vandalised by some people recently. We should keep it. The article needs to be re-written by an unaffiliated editor. Stupido99 (talk) 09:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck this duplicate vote. You may only vote once in any discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the coverage can be considered as significant; the argument that it is 8 years old for keeping it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. Spiderone 20:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 13:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone policing[edit]

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

This article has only two cited sources and relatively biased content, out of tone with the rest of the wiki. 141.114.194.83 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--text copied from article talk page. I'll note the irony of complaining about the "tone" of the article, but otherwise I'll withhold my !vote until a later date. --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a neologism that has about as little support as a snowflake. My gNews search [2]. To keep a political neologism we need substantive consideration of such a term in RS media, substantive discussion form public intellectuals, and scholarly consideration. The strongest source I came up with is The Myth of Tone Policing, from that right-wing rag, The Harvard Crimson. [3] For the curious, the Crimson columnist points to the "seminal" source on the topic, published in Everyday Feminism, here: [4]. Impressive propaganda, and, clearly the people pushing this meme/neologism make some valid and telling points. However, undergrad newspaper columnists do not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for sources, it's often the most efficient way to assess short, new articles on little known topics, neologisms in particular. I see now that there are 2 books referenced in the article. I continue to think that this is too think to pass the bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the condition that it can be rewritten without the soapboxing. Same issue as the more fleshed-out Generation Snowflake. A neologism article for a word used by critics should focus on the neologism at hand, not the those who use it. That is, answer the question "What is tone policing?" rather than "Who is guilty of tone policing?" or "Who claims to have been tone-policed?". Jergling (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Generation Snowflake might be an efficient and reasonable resolution. {ping|Jergling}, What thinkest thou?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I'd have to disagree with that. They're both petty, politically charged terms that have unfortunately entered the popular lexicon, but they mean very different things. "Tone policing" is usually used in leftist internal critique, while "snowflake generation" is a right-wing pejorative for young liberals. Neither are particularly strong critiques. I'd be all for merging tone policing to ad hominem or a similar fallacy. Jergling (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a much used neologism. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:WORDISSUBJECT is the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to tepid keep. Very tepid because the term has not entered the general conversation; rather, it is in use within a narrow bandwidth of academic and political activism. Nevertheless, it is arguable useful to have terms that many users will need ot look up, and ~ 50 users per day were coming to this page before the AFD started, an indication that it is useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conceptually interesting as an ad hominem and a distraction technique to try to win an argument. Also material from the external links could be used.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasan Gopalan[edit]

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

This person does not seem to meet WP:GNG. being a future board member of Deutsche Telekom is not sufficient I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and non-notable person. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 12:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Subject lacks 'significant' coverage in multiple reliable sources. Whatever coverage of him I'm able to find only quotes him in respect of the entity he works/worked for, like Gopalan said this, said that, said blah, etc. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear advertising as it cares to actually specify his job history, something only a business listing with PR motivations would mention. SwisterTwister talk 01:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of in-depth coverage Spiderone 19:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 01:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Hutton[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. keep !voters need to actually demonstrate not notability beyond inherent notability. The one source provided although detailed is written by his daughter so cannot be considered independent of the subject. LibStar (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have expanded out the references using further sources, including from The Canberra Times. I am aware there was media in The Australian and The Mercury but I have been unable to locate yet - these are referenced in Hutton's book The Legacy of Suez. Clare. (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Published author, ambassador during Lebanese Civil War (amongst other significant postings). Seems pretty notable to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Appears to be a notable ambassador holding multiple posts, with adequate third party sources. -- Whats new?^(talk) 23:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At time of nomination, article was a bit scant but has been expanded and referenced very well with sources other than relative's obituary. Notable author as well as ambassador. --Canley (talk) 04:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a major source for this article is an obit in the Sydney Morning Herald, although the smh is a good WP:RS (an ozzie NYT(?)), it is written by a relative, article states Hutton also wrote two books, WorldCat shows library holdings of thirty-two and two, is this a significant number for these sorts of books?, but also shows a review in Australian Journal of Political Science for one of them, a gsearch has not brought up any others. The CT articles appear to be trivial mentions, other references by Hutton, are they relevant for notablenesss? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as created by a block-evading editor. (It was also close to be speedily-deletable as promotion.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

State anthem of Azad Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

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

there are no sources backing up the claim as being "official" none found on the web Domdeparis (talk) 14:26, 18 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guido Martino[edit]

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

Blatant hoax, no Google hits outside false positives and Wikipedia mirrors. Especially the train-killing anecdote sounds like an obvious joke. Speedy deletion deprodded purely because the article is 10 years old (which does not seem a great argument). Even if not a hoax, there is no claim of notability whatsoever, as the subject seems like a random fascist who achieved nothing in his life, but given the tone of the article especially in its early version [5], the lack of sources, the lack of Google hits, the history of its IP creator who later tried to create a further hoax through WP:AFC ([6]), there is little doubt it is a hoax. Cavarrone 13:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cavarrone 13:44, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having spent some time looking for any reference for this individual, I have found none. Fails WP:V. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Even if it is not a hoax, he seems completely NN, save as then perpetrator of a murder of a nameless railway employee. Since this was (I think) before Mussolini took power, I doubt that even he would have approved of murder as the penalty for a train being late. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after Mussolini took power, there was never such a thing, i.e. death penalty for late train drivers! That's just a joke based on the Fascist propaganda myth "Mussolini made the trains run on time" (eg. see [7] or [8]). Cavarrone 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally unsourced article. It is high time Wikipedia had none of these. Nothing to verify its assertions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete I searched - just in case, found nothing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For what it is worth, I didn't find anything either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Can't confirm he existed. Also, no article in the Italian wiki. Zero^talk 08:19, 25 November 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. While there are concerns being voiced about whether the sources located bestow WP:N, I do not see a consensus to delete the article. Joyous! | Talk 01:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ixigo[edit]

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

Non-notable website without a single reliable source giving in-depth coverage of them. Links to their website have been actively spammed here for a long time by throw-away IPs on a considerable number of articles, and it was when doing an external link search (looking for more spam links) that I found the article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While external links to the site should be removed, the company seems quite notable. Clicking on that news links provides a few dozen newsworthy articles about them. I'm not from India but my guess is they are quite a big thing over there. Note there is quite a bit more history for that page here, a history merge might be appropriate. --Muhandes (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable website Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Yeah,there are advertisements of the company in Indian TV channels. Also,it's a popular travel website.But does that make it encycloepadic?Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 16:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as corporate spam on an unremarkable travel web site. No value to the project. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 12:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see coverage for this company in reliable sources including but not limited to [9], [10], [11]. Meets the notability criteria. Regards—UY Scuti ^Talk 14:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above in the previous post which amount to sig cov in at least two with the other one probable but behind a paywall which lead to a pass of WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- one of the said "sig coverage" is

"ixigo plans to go for a third round of funding"

This is WP:MILL coverage related to funding and company aspirations. The other one is

"ixigo launches app discovery platform for train travellers"

-- also routine launch publicity. I don't see sources here that address the topic directly and in detail that are not PR driven. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 27 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Bailey[edit]

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

I believe the reason McGeddon gave in his removed PROD is valid; "Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources". The sources given seem to only be links to the radio stations mentioned in the article, without indicating how they are relevant to this person. Article seems to be an autobiography for promotional purposes. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you tell me how to add secondary sources then I will add them. The page is not for promotional reasons at all it's to highlight achievements in the radio industry over the past 15 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbailey0012 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your username seems to indicate that you are Craig Bailey. Is that the case? If you are not Craig Bailey, you will need to change your username, which you can do by following the instructions here. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm trying to change username but have no idea what the instructions are telling me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbailey0012 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can visit this page directly. 331dot (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you associated with Mr. Bailey in any way? FYI please sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end. 331dot (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with initial PROD, fails WP:BASIC unable to find any significant sources that would qualify. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 12:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lets have a chat? no idea how to but I am trying to resolve every issue you are throwing at me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigbailey0012 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To have an article on Wikipedia, article subjects must be shown with independent (secondary) reliable sources that indicate how the subject is notable per the relevant notability guidelines, in this case those for biographies. Merely linking to the radio station websites Mr. Bailey is associated with is not an independent reliable source; this would include things like news stories, independent reviews of his work, books, etc. I would ask you again if you are associated with Mr. Bailey in any way. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A radio personality does not qualify for a Wikipedia article if the only "sources" you can provide to support the information are the primary source web pages of the stations he's been affiliated with — notability is conditional on his being the subject of substantive coverage in sources he is not affiliated with, such as newspapers and books. I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody can actually show the kind of sources that actually pass muster toward meeting WP:GNG, but his own "our staff" profile on the web page of his own employer does not get him into an encyclopedia in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Operator[edit]

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

Not a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Control[edit]

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

Not a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close. Wrong forum - AfD is not the place to propose a merge, and deletion is incompatible with merging. Michig (talk) 10:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Connect[edit]

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

Not a notable product, many news articles about it are actually press releases. Suggest merging anything usable into Kerio Technologies Shritwod (talk) 09:03, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK Rail Leasing[edit]

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

Rail cruft - refs mainly point to Flickr/original research blog posts etc. Non notable company, only interested in rail related leasing. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Nordic Nightfury 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of this is about what individual locomotives have done on various dates, and where they may be seen. Essentially, it's a trainspotter's log book, not encyclopedic. If the trainspotting is removed (see WP:NOTDIARY), there's very little left. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate collection of information and not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 23 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Bobby[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP, WP:CREATIVE. Could not find any reliable sources online. Mr. Guye (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks well written enough with the shows she played a role in. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 05:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable independent sources. Maproom (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes NACTOR with significant roles in multiple shows/movies. Maproom, the presence or lack or reliable sources in the article is not what we are !voting on in AfD. There are reliable sources showing she was in these roles which I'll add to the article. We need to look outside Wikipedia, not just at what was added to the article by an editor who poorly sourced their article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been unable to find adequate references. And the fact that editors have put 21 citations in the article, which contain no significant discussion beyond the roles she has played and the statements that she is "winning"(3), "lesser-known"(4), "young" and "charming"(13), suggest that no-one else can either. Maproom (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maproom:, I'm trying to show passing WP:NACTOR #1, which the sources show. I added the critical responses as icing on the cake. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- a reasonably well sourced stub and appears to meet WP:ACTOR. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:25, 21 November 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 13:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Player wins[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be part of a series of articles about basketball statistics created by the same person (Dean Oliver (statistician)). The statistics might be notable, but these articles are (1) mostly unsourced and (2) are very short and highly dependent on each other. For example, this two-sentence article defines "player wins" as Player Games times Player Winning Percentage, both of which are also statistics created by Oliver. Hence, a reader would need to refer to at least two other articles to understand this one -- and those other articles have a combined total of eight sentences. And Player Winning Percentage is dependent on Offensive rating and Defensive rating, which are also stats created by Oliver. It would be preferable to discuss Oliver's statistics in a more comprehensive article to avoid readers from having to go back and forth so much, if indeed those statistics are notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article and the two mentioned above could all be deleted with redirects to Dean Oliver (statistician), if indeed he did coin/develop these terms. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not being encyclopedic content which would be more suitable as a section in another, more fleshed out article. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, → Call me Razr Nation 10:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 02:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Delorme[edit]

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

This article about a living person is in clear violation of COI policies, as described for instance in WP:PSCOI. It was plainly written by its subject, as you can see in the history, and it is laid out like a CV. I’ve mentioned all this in the talk page and gotten no response. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contributions do not rise to the level of significant impact in his field.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I agree, but what about the COI issues? The editor who basically wrote the article is called Arnodelorme. These issues seem even more important to me. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 22:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about others' opinions on the COI issues here. The plain and simple COI guide says you should not edit articles about yourself, yet this entire article was clearly written by Arnaud Delorme, and is laid out exactly like a resume, which is not the purpose of encyclopedia articles. I don't see a way this article could be easily salvaged. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and stubbify. Passes WP:Prof#C1 with reasonable GS cites in well-cited field. COI is not relevant for delete except that BLP might be stubbified to remove excess promotional bloat. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Keep as I concur with Xxanthippe, the high of 6,130 cites is enough and that's in Elsevier, certainly enough, and as a lead author. I will comment that I've accepted Drafts or articles at least started by COI for years, as long as they were notable. SwisterTwister talk 04:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although the article is ridiculously promotional in its current state, the subject looks like a clear pass of WP:PROF#C1 based on their citation metrics. Joe Roe (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so what I'm hearing is that this article will most likely be kept because of the notability of the subject in academia, but someone (probably me) should go through it and take all the promotional-style content out and turn it into something resembling an encyclopedia article? I'd appreciate anyone's suggestions if that's the likely outcome. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the job of the proposer. You could remove everything below the lede. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Alright, I'll think about what precisely I'll do, probably will be more in line with what you said than not. Meanwhile, I should wait until an admin decides officially not to delete the article, correct? Eflatmajor7th (talk) 06:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:33, 22 November 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 ) 18:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Atlas[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator. Many refs that proves that company exists, but no refs to show notability. Cannot find reliable sources to show notability. There are several sources in the article but most of them are primary sources; the rest do not appear in-depth enough to indicate notability. Cannot find any coverage of the site itself. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the publication was formerly called Gizmag -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article seems to exist only for promotional purposes. I don't see any indication of significant coverage in high-quality independent reliable sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback but I can assure you as the creator the intention of this piece isn't promotional, but to provide details on the long history of the business using Gizmodo as base structure to create the page. I will look to add a section on coverage with details on breaking news & additional notable sources. Will post here as soon as this has been updated, any further advice & guidance is greatly appreciated. —Coast123 (talk) 9:30, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Keep: Page has been updated to include additional citations and material. Looking to expand the new coverage section due to the high number of brand references within Wikipedia. —Coast123 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Wikipedia itself is not to be used as a cited source in articles or as evidence of notability. Practically none of that material that you put into the article is talking about the website itself or establishing its notability, as best I can tell. Most of it was not about the website at all. The fact that some person who works for the website or owns the website was on some panel with 100 other people to give some award to someone else does nothing to establish the notability of the website and is basically irrelevant – that might be some (very minor) evidence that the person is notable, but it does nothing to establish that the website is notable. The fact that the website published an article about some camera does nothing to establish the notability of the website – even if some other people read that article and reference it in other articles. It might be evidence of the notability of the camera, but not the website that talked about it. What we need is in-depth coverage about the website in independent reliable sources. Please see WP:GNG. Incidentally, can you please try to use edit summaries when editing to explain your edits? It would be helpful to understand the motivation of the edits. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't about the website, it's about the brands history and key figures involved during this time so I don't see how awards or key figures involved are irrelevant? Completely understand your reasoning RE notability so I've attempted to re-edit the content accordingly. The publication receives the majority of its coverage on other sites based on the articles & reports it produces, hence the large number of references throughout Wikipedia. This demonstrates the site as a trusted source, so the 'coverage' section was an attempt to display key breaking new stories where the brand has been cited by notable sources, again based on the Gizmodo page. Appreciate the feedback, thanks —Coast123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any references that talk ABOUT New Atlas/Gizmag. There are plenty of refs that show that it exists, but I cannot find any in-depth articles that talk about it. For instance, if you look at the Gizmodo page, there are plenty of references talking about Gizmodo and not just using Gizmodo as a source. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 14:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes a lot more sense, I'll investigate - thanks! —Coast123 (talk) 15:11, 10 November 2016 (GMT)

Yes, please. The article is about New Atlas/Gizmag. Per WP:GNG, it should cite "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" that talk about New Atlas/Gizmag "directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". Currently the article does not have that. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I think (hope) we're almost there! The page now includes more details about the website specifically including a diverse array of sources i.e. the Sydney Morning Herald, HighBeam Research and other independent publications. Let me know what you guys think, I've found references toward a book in which the founder had contributed but as it's not the website specifically not sure if that's relevant? Thanks again —Coast123 (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2016 (GMT)

Unless there are any other points of feedback based on the recent changes can we now mark this discussion as resolved? Thanks for all the help. Coast123 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2016 (GMT)

Personally, I still don't think it passes WP:GNG. Of the thirteen refs:

1. Two sentences that shows it exists. 2. Own site. First party. 3. Not about site, about culture clashes. 4. Three sentences that shows it exists. 5. A line in a chart (it exists). 6. Linked-In profile 8. Short paragraph that says it exists. 9. It exists. 11. Looks like a paid advertisement. 12. Own site. First party. 13. Three sentences that shows it exists. Of the two left, 7 and 10, they're both just interviews with the creator. Not independent from the subject matter. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: All of the references that state it exists are included as it backs up a statement about the brand / website, so whilst I respect your opinion I have to disagree. Also references 7 & 10 are not interviews, they just include quotes taken from the owner Mike Hanlon, with the articles themselves covering key events in Gizmag’s history which is independent of the subject matter. Compared to other Wikipedia pages for publications such as Wired where 80% of references are from the website in question, the majority for New Atlas are also from external independent sources about the website. I fully believe the page now caters for the issues surrounding notability. Thanks Coast123 (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2016 (GMT)

Note: I have struck the duplicate !vote above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find significant coverage about the website or any indication why it was significant. The sources are also not good enough, as can be seen from the analysis. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as questionable source with only expectations of PR and nothing else suggesting both genuinely and sufficient otherwise, thus delete since the article is showing it. SwisterTwister talk 08:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The problem appears to be one of multiple reliable sources. However you cut it, there seems to be consensus (minus, of course, the article creator) that there is one, maybe two, RS. That doesn't reach notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:14, 2 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 G11 by Ritchie333. czar 19:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liv3ly (Company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article seems promotional. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:11, 18 November 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. While several participants believe the article(s) should be deleted based on WP:NOSTATS, several others pointed to very similar articles that had been improved to the point of...encyclopedia-ness... Even the user who made the original nomination changed his mind. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1946–59)[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same criteria:

~~Delete all.~~ See change of vote below. (Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | ^{talk page} 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons already given. There's no attempt to do anything other than throw stats at a page here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MIRROR has no relationship whatsoever to this page or to deletion, and the whole of Wikipedia, per WP:V and WP:NOR, consists of information that is available elsewhere. We need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS {MordeKyle} ☢ 21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we're deleting these, then we should also bundle in England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) and England cricket team Test results (1920–39) as well. Just because the other lists are effectively stubs, and those two are not should not factor in. We don't delete based strictly on content, but on potential content. All the lists that have been nominated have the potential to be similar to the two I've mentioned, so all should be considered equally. Harrias ^talk 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Harrias:. Sorry, I don't agree. Those two articles have had a lot of work done on them and they are well beyond the "bare statistics" label. The others have the potential, as you say, but there has been no progress towards that potential. The point is that they have been there too long as stats and stats only. I know we are short of members now but we cannot allow statistics to just sit there indefinitely. As for what is wrong with cricket statistics, they breach WP:IINFO and they confuse non-cricket readers. Furthermore, they are of minimal, if any, use to cricket followers too unless they have a context and an article without narrative has no context. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve The deletion seems to be based on point #14 of the reasons for deletion: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". That links to WP:NOT, which features most of the above complaints. At the bottom of that page, the section entitled "When you wonder what to do" suggest a bullet point list, and above "Nominating the page for deletion" is "Changing the content of an article (normal editing)". I would contest that given that the 1877 and 1920 lists demonstrate that these articles have potential to be "well beyond the "bare statistics" label" the nominated articles should be tagged, but left for future expansion. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and often without a stub to start someone off, an article or list will never have a chance to reach its full potential. Harrias ^talk 23:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Strongly agrees with Harrias. It can be improved as it needs a good prose so we can categorize it as stub but deletion looks awkward. GreenCricket (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator closed this discussion with a keep result, stating that the nomination was withdrawn, (diff) but this is not valid, because several users have !voted to delete the article. See WP:SKCRIT for more information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change of vote. Sorry, I guess I didn't follow due process there. As nominator, I have accepted the arguments put forward by Harrias and GreenCricket. I now think we should keep these articles per their reasoning. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sure these all need improvement, but WP is a work in progress, and this discussion already noted that similar articles featuring Tests from 1877 onwards and from 1920 to 1939 have been improved. So not only do we have other articles in what might be regarded as a series that includes these articles, (so it'd be an incomplete series if we deleted them), but we also have a model for the kind of improvement that can be effective. Just now needs to be done and I for one am willing to wait. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content minus the lists themselves into relevant other articles e.g. History of the England cricket team to 1939 and History of the England cricket team from 1945, both of which could do with improving and would benefit from the source contented in the leads of these lists. The lists of every match are totally unnecessary per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:02, 21 November 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. czar 19:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OSTC Group[edit]

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

Dubious notability. The article demonstrates no more than mere existence. The listing of the second-level officers makes it a promotional directory entry. I cannot access the first reference, but "being in the next wave of trading firms" in Poland is not notability. The second is just a local article on a local firm, and that is not reliable for notability because local newspapers give coverage to all such firms. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because, though it is not easy to search online for "OSTC", there doesn't appear to be any general news coverage about this company (apart from the local report already cited). As the nominator says, it reads like a directory entry with no claims of notability. Sionk (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO on an unremarkable business with no indications of notability or significance. Close to (if not at) A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I meant to comment when the nomination happened, I concur with the nomination in that literally everything here is simply a business listing and that's expected with such subjects as these; the history itself shows the sheer blatancy of numerous accounts all caring to only specify advertising materials, so that's all enough for delete. SwisterTwister talk 04:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable per WP:Corp; a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 18 November 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Britney Rears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NFILM. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought it was going to be a speedyable gag name! You can imagine my surprise when I clicked. Jergling (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Now as the principal author of Jar Jar Binks Must Die, I can understand why certain article titles are attractive. But this article is bereft of independent, nonpromotional sourcing and makes no legitimate claim of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm extremely disappointed with this article .... I had high expectations!, Anyway non notable franchise fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 14:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all relevant content to VCA Pictures as a couple of the films from this series have been one of several of the most top-selling adult films of 2005-06. Guy1890 (talk) 02:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the above. Notability has not been properly established. → Call me Razr Nation 10:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Examination of the !votes shows that there is no argument for deletion. One argument reports looking at the article; but WP:N is not a content guideline, so article content is not determinative for notability concerns. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Given the community consensus from the previous AfD, notability concensus is not in dispute. Unscintillating (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unremarkable film series with no indications of notability or significance. Sources are not there to build a balanced article (see: WP:WHYN), as they are routine industry coverage and award nomination materials. Does not meet WP:FILM as the one award listed is trivial. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHYN was rejected a almost a decade ago as a part of the WP:N guideline proper. Just within the last week the community has again rejected having a WP:DEL-REASON for, "Insufficient sources to write an article that meets the core content policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV." Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHYN is still a part of WP:N. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:59, 5 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Square Media, Inc.[edit]

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

No claim to any notability (notability is not inherited from one nationally broadcasted tv show). Fails WP:CORP and WP:NOTSOAPBOX. P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable at the moment, but if it has another notable TV show under its belt then it could merit its own entry in the future. Shritwod (talk) 10:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as literally only ever existing to advertise a listing about a company whose involvements were with a TV show, nothing else hence there's close to nothing considering significance as it is. SwisterTwister talk 01:02, 25 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allchurches Trust[edit]

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

No independent reliable sources to give evidence of notability. David Biddulph (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a stub (see version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Allchurches_Trust&oldid=664768775 before promo stuff was added). Is notable because of large size of charity and links to CofE and Ecclesiastical Insurance. --Mervyn (talk) 09:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trim massively, at least - seems to be notable, or at least its subsidiary is, but man this fails WP:OWN and half of this is basically just a reprint of their website. Will think about filing a keep/delete vote. Blythwood (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User User:Joanna Biddolph has admitted POV editing of this - best solution is to revert to a "clean" earlier version and improve from there. --Mervyn (talk) 08:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reputable, longstanding British organization that works as a banker, insurer, and financial services organization for churches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 21 November 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 is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:15, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renuka David[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Two of the sources are dead; one is an unreliable YouTube source; and one, although reliable, only briefly mentions the subject. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable source I can find is the Hindu one already in the article, and it doesn't cover her in detail. There isn't enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. The article is also overly promotional in tone. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above problems have been addressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennizm (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of the references that have been added are just links to websites and don't mention her (eg, [12], [13] [14], [15], [16] and [17]), and the few that are proper sources are not independant (eg [18], [19]-this one is PR). The only exceptions are the Hindu on I mentined above and possibly this one, though is seems a bit like PR to me. There is still not enough here to meet GNG or NBIO, and it is still overly promotional. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete raw WP:PROMO replete with fake refs. oy. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is a pure advertisement. However, that is not only problem. The bigger issue is that she has not received 'significant' coverage in reliable sources. I'm seeing only trivial coverage of her in reliable sources. Anup [Talk] 02:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - concerns about reliability of sources, incidental mentions, and promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 02:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In India, it is mostly paid publicity/PR that happens. The fact that a couple of clear mentions like in The Hindu have been received, is acceptable. Not all good works receive publicity. I guess that needs to be taken into consideration too.Suresh menon (talk) 02:28, 24 November 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. czar 20:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Donato[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is only a school and university league player. That is not very notable by a large margin. He fails WP:NHOCKEY very clearly in light of his limited league participation and because he was also just a 2nd round NHL Entry Draft pick. Regarding general coverage: There are actually quite some articles which mention his name, but most of them are only in a passing mention for match reports or because of his father. Most of them are also just non-RS college newspapers. Thats not enough to pass the threshold of WP:GNG, because nothing of that is actually significant coverage of the subject itself. His father having an article also doesnt matter, as notability is not inherited. He fails WP:GNG therefore and the article should be deleted. Dead Mary (talk) 13:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above. I'd also oppose a redirect, if anyone proposed one; I don't consider this a credible search term. Ravenswing 03:10, 21 November 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 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Mobley[edit]

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

I've nominated this simply because it's not only so blatant business job listing (WP:SPAM and WP:NOT), but there's no actual claims of significance, hence this could use immediate deletion if possible, because (1) the one award listed is entirely trivial and unconvincing, being a trivial "citizen" award, regardless of where it comes from, and (2) she's only a finalist for a TV show, that's not at all a confirmation of actual notability or substance let alone a convincing article. Everything else simply goes to be exact business listing materials such as "She's a health advocate and plans to start a nonprofit). The fact this also then, next, goes to such specifics about her schools and education, it can only be either a self-advertised biography and it is, by User:Paigemobley. SwisterTwister talk 02:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly a self-promo job created by the subject, User:Paigemobley. I guess she could become notable if she wins America's Next Top Model, but I see little out there yet beyond YouTube, Social Media etc and minor mentions as a finalist in PerezHilton.com and Parent Herald. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argument- Id like to make an argument against both Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) and SwisterTwister talk talk . Allow me to reference to the wiki articles of Michael Heverly, Cory Wade Hindorff, Jane Randall, Celia Ammerman, and Anchal Joseph. All of these former Top Model contestants have articles WITHOUT winning Top Model. They also ALL have far less "out there" or credits then that of Paige Mobley. To delete Paige Mobley without deleting all these other Top Model contestant articles would not make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigemobley (talk • contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be established beyond the competition. What I mean by "little out there" is Reliable sources establishing notabilty for the subjects of Wikipedia articles. However, they may also fail the notabilty guidlines, too. I'll have to have a look. Thanks, Paige. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArgumentIadmc (Jubileeclipman) Im sorry, but I have to disagree. Cory Wade Hindorff "currently lives in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania." and Jane Randall " is engaged to a Canadian oil tycoon."... I don't see how these are notable or worthy establishments beyond the competition. As far as reliable sources go.. Ive read the article and I understand that collaboratively created websites (such as IMDB, personal site and Youtube) are not encouraged. However, the rest of the cited resources come from 3rd party acceptable articles. I will state again, to delete Paige Mobley while keeping the MANY other Top Model contestant articles does not make sense. Especially when MANY have significantly less accomplishments and experience than Paige Mobley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paigemobley (talk • contribs) 21:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding some US sources which I didn't find initially (I'm in the UK). I will look more closely at those other articles: I only glanced at them before. IMDB and YouTube probably belong in External links with your Resumé (which is not a third party source since presumably either you or your agent wrote it...). Note: if your article is deleted, this is not a reflection on you, simply an enforcement on Wikipedia policy. You may yet become "notable" enough to be included so hang in there! Good luck with your career and the show! Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closer - Since the time I nominated this article, it has now changed to what's seen currently, but everything listed is simply trivial, regardless of whatever changes, because the one thing that summarizes this is: She's simply a TV show finalist. We have past AfDs as it is, and the WP:OSE articles listed above, can easily be nominated as TV show contestants are rarely ever independently notable, especially if solely as a finalist or beginning contestant. SwisterTwister talk 22:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've flagged Cory Wade Hindorff for deletion I can only find social media etc for him. He's certainly an important role model for gay men and boys but little is written about him in third party sources. At least in the UK. The others have successful modelling careers though whether they are genuinely notable is also disputable. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The self-promotion is embarrassing. Trafalk09 (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Self-promotion - may receive notable coverage if she wins but it is currently Too soon, whilst other stuff exists is not a valid argument - Arjayay (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I do agree with the arguments above though. Not that many contestants made a name for themselves after the show as Wikipedia seems to make it. Melia97 (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m41aygNfBB1r15uyio2_r4_250.gif — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:8502:B67B:988E:BE0A:E67E:F7CA (talk) 21:46, 26 November 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dalian International Marathon[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. very gnews hits but mostly from one source. Despite being international very few winners are notable, in fact most winners are from host country so not sure if this is a world class marathon . I will reconsider if someone can find in-depth coverage in Chinese LibStar (talk) 18:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to be regularly covered by the China Daily and claims (plausibly) to be one of the oldest races in China. After all it's been run for almost 30 years, so difficult to believe it wouldn't have been covered in the Chinese press. Sionk (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it might have been covered but i would think it's routine press. Something claiming to be international should get international coverage. I doubt it as it appears most of the participants are from china. LibStar (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly would be non-routine coverage? And why doesn't national news coverage meet WP:GNG? You seem to be creating an unnecessary high bar for this event. Sionk (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not. If this is China's largest marathon fair enough. But it isn't. Wikipedia doesn't include every annual marathon. LibStar (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"If this is China's largest marathon fair enough." — Are you suggesting there can only be 1 Chinese marathon on en.wiki when we have more than 100 Category:Marathons in the United States? "Something claiming to be international should get international coverage" — are you now saying it's not international when just a week ago you wrote "Despite being international"? Timmyshin (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it has very few international competitors, it appears calling it international is marketing. My comment os that it is called international but i question if it's a true international competition. Comparing to US marathons is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. LibStar (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this a true international marathon then why are so many winners non notable athletes from china who have not won other overseas marathons or competed in Olympics...despite being international . LibStar (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"so many winners non notable athletes from china who have not won other overseas marathons or competed in Olympics" — what does this have to do with it being international or not? International means "two or more nations" not "world-class" or "best in the world". And why does it matter if it's international or not, is there a guideline that says a marathon is non-notable if it's not international? Most of Category:Marathons in the United States aren't international. And you still haven't answered the question of "Are you suggesting there can only be 1 Chinese marathon on en.wiki?" Timmyshin (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there can be as much marathons that meet WP:GNG. if you think there are other marathons not notable please nominate them. I'd also suggest you tone down your aggression. Thanks LibStar (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is asking on-topic questions considered aggression? User:Sinok has already provided proof that the topic meets WP:GNG. Your arguments for deletion weren't related to WP:GNG at all. As far as I can see, you were arguing the topic ought to be deleted because 1) it's not international because most winners are from China and not notable and 2) it's not China's largest marathon. You haven't clarified on the second argument, hence my question. For the record most international marathons are participated by athletes from the home country. Timmyshin (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone is quite pushy. Suggest you WP:CHILL. LibStar (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

which american marathons will you nominate for deletion? LibStar (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if you feel that way, no offense intended. I don't want any marathon article deleted, but take a look at Big Sur International Marathon, participants appear even less notable. Timmyshin (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Currently the article is poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Even if it was known only in China, that is still a country of well over 1 billion people, so even if the marathon only had coverage within China it must surely sail over the WP:GNG bar. It just needs a bit of commonsense applying. Sionk (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so anything with a bit of coverage in china gets an article because it has over 1 billion? That's a new criterion for notability LibStar (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's what is simply called 'general notability', widely known. One thing I would suggest though, if the article is kept, is that the word "International" is removed from the name. In the sources I've found it is called simply the Dalian Marathon. Sionk (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability (unless inherent as defined by a specific guideline) is not based on "widely known" and somehow correlating that china gets a free pass. Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd say most chinese have not heard of this marathon whilst most americans have heard of the New York Marathon. LibStar (talk) 18:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sionk the topic is better known as "Dalian International Marathon", just click on the following links and compare:

(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)Timmyshin (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Negi (caste)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this is WP:NOTABLE. Boleyn (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though I hesitate to offer opinions in areas like this where I have no knowledge, I cannot find anything anywhere to suggest that "Negi" is anything other than a surname, perhaps attached to the Kanet tribe or caste. This page has been repeatedly tagged as non-notable for years, and has been a magnet for all sorts of puffery and unsourced claims. It might be a good idea to salt it. — Gorthian (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with Gorthian; the onus needs to be on proving that the topic is notable and it is very difficult to see any evidence of notability here. Certainly, not enough for an article of its own in any case. Spiderone 20:04, 25 November 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) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Madrasa Al Islamiya[edit]

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think pre-K to 8th grade schools are intrinsically notable. I think it's high school and above. If so, this article doesn't qualify as notable as I could not find significant coverage online. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Grade schools are not inherently notable and absolutely nothing notable about this particular school. Safiel (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 (unambiguous copyvio of https://in.sagepub.com/en-in/sas/author/arindam-banik) by Ronhjones. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Banik[edit]

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

I could not find independent coverage online making it fail WP:GNG, and also it fails WP:NACADEMIC. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. GS Citations not quite there. I have noticed that BLPs that described their subject as "Dr" or "Professor" can often be of dubious quality. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Remark: I just remembered: As this is part of WP:DELSORT/INDIA, it may be a good idea to check out WP:INDAFD.--Mr. Guye (talk) 23:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the case his professorship is in fact an Honorary one, as shown by the faculty listing here, and it seems the school is in fact the country's first corporate-sponsored business school, it's sufficient. SwisterTwister talk 07:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

according to which Wikipedia policy is it "sufficient"?

WP:PROF. I will say that I was questionable at first, but the Honorary position may be enough at least. SwisterTwister talk 00:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Subject meets WP:PROF#5 (named chair) and may be also #6 (director of a notable institution). But the article is a WP:COPYVIO of [20]. Anup [Talk] 22:45, 20 November 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. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fergus Hainkel and the Biscuit Boxes[edit]

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

Apparent hoax. I can't find any evidence this band exists, or has ever existed. Searches reveal nothing. Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing on the internet about either the band or Fergus Hainkel, other than this unreferenced article. The article was created in a single edit by an account with only that one edit. Clearly a hoax. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax. Mike Oldfield did jokingly write "This stereo record cannot be played on old tin boxes no matter what they are fitted with." on the sleeve of Tubular Bells, which may have something to do with the Biscuit Boxes. Or not. The rest of it is just made up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Time to speedy it, right? Jergling (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:43, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Bogert[edit]

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

Fails WP:BLP and WP:NMUSIC. Mr. Guye (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass the notability requirements for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A7 material. No indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable and frankly this could go under CSD A7. Safiel (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON, and a WP:NACTOR fail. I was going to give the author a couple of weeks before AfD'ing this, but the fact is that a couple of more weeks is not going to magically produce the kind of sourcing this one needs to pass the notability bar... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Perhaps merely WP:TOOSOON, his leading role in a hit TV show that has been renewed for a 2nd season is an indication of potential notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This edit could be considered to be a deletion request from the article's author. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note I had actually considered that when I reverted that edit. However, I thought it was too ambiguous to warrant tagging for CSD G7. If he comes back and makes an unambiguous comment to that effect, I would be happy to tag for CSD G7. Safiel (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

changing my vote to keep. Rethinking partly because the 2nd season of that TV series is pending. But also because Peace Arch News appears to be a legit local/regional daily and in addition to a new article published a day ago [21], it ran a profile in June [22] from which an article can be sourced (in addition to the interview already on the page). He was 15 last summer, and it just seems to make sense to keep this article on a teen heartthrob whose fans have made him something of a deal on social media.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That June 2016 profile contains this sentence: "an even bigger opportunity for Bogert – a lead role in a series for Family Channel that begins filming in Toronto this August (beyond those scant few facts, the producers insist on a media black-out on the project at this stage)."E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 20 November 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. Shirt58 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wolves Summit[edit]

(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:Kvng with the following rationale "Sourcing is not clearly insufficient so this deletion is potentially controversial." Well, as far as I am concerned the sourcing is weak and consists of unreliable, niche/minor spam-sites that are likely payed to promote content, and press-releases, which do so openly. It is also misleading - the first (now dead) ref was labelled CNBC but the link betrays it was just a republished press release. It was created by WP:SPA and likely WP:COI, given its name, User:Magda wolves - and sadly, since the event took place last weak, I guess the spammer achieved its goal; the least we can do is clean that up and delete it. 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} 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't take anti-spam and COI context into account when patrolling proposed deletions. I suggest that if you suspect this sort of thing in the future, you take it directly to CSD or AfD. PROD is for deletions that are not expected to be controversial. The justifications you give for deletion of this are, if not potentially controversial, at least complex. ~Kvng (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- promotional spin on an unremarkable event. The nominator's arguments are convincing, and I don't see anything better. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant and clear advertising, going as far to contain costs and pricing information, none of this suggests anything better at all and, if it wasn't for the sake of saving ourselves from a future AfD, this should've been deleted by PROD as it was in fact appropriate. SwisterTwister talk 02:13, 18 November 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 A7. Not waiting for this to WP:SNOW over. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dipper's hat[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, non-notable fictional object RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. RA0808 ^talk _contribs 01:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikia, Dipper or else Mason's cap is unknown. 203.111.224.55 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 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. Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for nonsensical analyses assserting that Apollo 11 didn't happen Acroterion (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation of Apollo 11 on the basis of the fuel balance for the start and flight trajectory X[edit]

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

Seems to be a mathematical opinion essay. Such content is not appropriate in an encyclopedia. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:19, 18 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Khatuna Milorava[edit]

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

Not a notable filmmaker/artist (theatrical director). ~~No notable films.~~ Can't find much reliable sources in the searches as well. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk mail) 07:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 07:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk

mail) 07:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - she appears to be a locally-known theater director, Finding sources in Georgian text will be difficult. Please ping me if you fins anything to convince me to change my mind. Bearian (talk) 22:49, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Live from Sydney[edit]

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

Prod removed by creator with no reasoning. Cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources. A few mentions to show that this event took place, but nothing substantial. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 12:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article about a non-notable tour. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 21 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skeff Anselm[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale, which I still consider valid: "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 (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Peakipedia (Creator, WP:SPA) with no rationale (despite the fact that I explicitly asked for one in the PROD). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 19 November 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. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adham Nabulsi[edit]

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

No claim or indication of notability beyond the reality show, for which winning is required to show notability John from Idegon (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a case of WP:TOSOON. No prejudice for recreation when more sources are available. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps merely WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:47, 18 November 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 13:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance for the Caucasus[edit]

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

Article is for a proposed alliance that never came to pass. Seems like news coverage was not lasting and was limited to Turkish newspapers. That is, doesn't appear to pass WP:EVENTCRITERIA (or WP:GNG). Ajpolino (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never existed, was WP:CRYSTAL at the time of creation. All sources are dead anyway. Jergling (talk) 17:56, 18 November 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.