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

The result was merge to Miyun District. Joyous! | Talk 00:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No Chinese[edit]

No Chinese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A marketing ploy that never materializes, sure it attracted some headlines even abroad, but I believe it is a case of WP:NOTNEWS. Timmyshin (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Miyun District. Given the readily available sources (even in English, which I guess for this particular subject isn't too surprising), this subject should certainly not be deleted outright, though I doubt it could be expanded much beyond what is currently on offer; as no future development is likely, a merger seems the best approach. Antepenultimate (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as Antepenultimate suggested. It would be enough simply to include the lead section of this article into Miyun District and disregard the rest. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep How can this be deleted using a WP:NOTNEWS rationale? This happened 5 years ago in 2011! Ottawahitech (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[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 00:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifique jr nahimana[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable youth footballer; I can just about prove that he exists but nothing more; clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played senior international football nor played in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As said above, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. → Call me Razr Nation 23:19, 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 00:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Healy[edit]

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

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

Fails to demonstrate eligibility under WP:MUSBIO. MUSBIO#1 expects the topic to be "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works [..that are..] not self-published, and are independent of the musician". Not the case here. Most supporting texts are self-published, or trivial (subject gets a "passing mention" when another topic is the primary subject of the supporting text). MUSBIO#2 or #3 expect chart position or major sales (not case here either). In general, neither GNG nor MUSBIO seem to be met. (While there are mentions of the subject in [for example] news articles, the primary topic of those articles are invariably about something else. This type of coverage generally fails WP:TRIVIAL - and is particularly problematic relative to WP:INVALIDBIO and WP:INHERITED. Specifically, just because we find small amounts of coverage which say things like "A is a member of BANDX", or "A is child of MUSICIANY", that doesn't make "A" independently notable). At best redirect to the article on the which the subject is a member. (When discussing this nom, I would note that WP:BLPKINDNESS likely applies).Guliolopez (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:MUSBIO -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and it's quite simple, as literally everything here is only for the group itself as are the sources so there's simply nothing for independennce, hence no article. SwisterTwister talk 03:38, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks the necessary sources to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 23:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:GNG. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 23:20, 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 00:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Knox Tea[edit]

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

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

No credible assertion of significance, no evidence of meeting WP:CORP, and I am not finding the significant coverage required. I would have deleted this in accordance with WP:CSD#A7 except for the fact that User:Just Chilling had already declined an A7 nomination for unknown reasons. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but it is not correct to say "Just Chilling had already declined an A7 nomination for unknown reasons." My edit summary was "Declined speedy - WP:A7 is not applicable. Deletion can be pursued at WP:AFD if thought appropriate.". Though organisations are, of course, subject to A7 deletion, brands are not. Since the article is primarily about the brand, it is not, as I stated, eligible for A7 deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Just Chilling: thanks for clarifying that distinction, which wasn't apparent to me at the time. And you are correct, although the company and the brand are essentially the same in this case. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A quick Google search shows most links go directly to the company website. I don't think this company (or brand) has any notability, and even though a claim of significance can be made I don't think the topic (brand) is broad enough to encompass its own standalone article. Garchy (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Google doesn't show much. Mostly own company website and FB page. No articles or mentions in mainstream media. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Google search doesn't return any meaningful sources to establish notability. → Call me Razr Nation 23:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. BlackJackPlayer (talk) 23:21, 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 keep. Joyous! | Talk 00:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2016 shooting of San Antonio police officer[edit]

2016 shooting of San Antonio police officer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 22:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: News or not, this is likely to become a major event in San Antonio. A manhunt is presently underway and the suspect has yet to be identified. If caught alive, he will be tried and, given the circumstances, most likely convicted. All this strikes me as worthy of an entry in WP. Chief Red Eagle (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• — Note to closing admin: Chief Red Eagle (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - early days. article can be improved. major event.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I note that many of the other articles about events in Category:Assassinated police officers tend to be about multiple shootings. This sort of thing is just too commonplace in America and may not be notable. Then again I get that the shooting right outside a police station stands out. I think it's really too early to tell, either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak keep as it is likely to gain further notability. Instaurare (talk) 01:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Given that it follows on the heels of other killings of police officers, and the reaction of government officials, I'm willing to hold out on this article's notability a little longer. We can come back on this when more details are shed on the case. Parsley Man (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No comment on the notability, but it could really use a less clunky title. ansh666 01:51, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The story so far: Officer pulls driver over for routine traffic stop. A second car stops, dude gets out, shoots and kills police officer. Drives away. Massive manhunt underway. Immediate national and international coverage. This does not sound like "routine" shooting to me. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, this should certainly be renamed to the much less clunky killing of Benjamin Marconi. (Note also that the victim's title was detective, not officer). Neutrality^talk 19:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Following the suspect's arrest, I have renamed the article to Shooting of Benjamin Marconi, since I am assuming there will no longer be any additional victims. Parsley Man (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would support a merge/redirect to San Antonio Police Department, but we don't have an article on the PD yet. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, suspect is in custody. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that although being upset over a custody dispute is routine, walking up to a police officer and murdering him is not. And it has not been covered as routine, rather, this is getting national coverage as part of a sharp increase on targeted/ambush attacks on police.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete keep - NOTNEWS is the biggest issue. The past few weeks we have five men shoot 7 officers, and this weekend we had 4 more. Not sure what sets this apart from the rest. Others have been ambushed but I am unaware of articles for them. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• And therefore this shooting is being analyzed in national media as part of an increase in the targeted/ambush shootings of police officers. Although the AFD at first seemed overeager while the manhunt was underway; I now think that the attention brought by the deliberate targeting of an officer and national coverage due to that aspect augurs keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... you've convinced me with the national media coverage. It's grown since I last looked. The media are treating this one differently than the other shootings, so I guess we should too. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Anthony Beminio and Justin Martin have an article. These 2 officers were killed in separate incidents, in "ambush style" shootings very similar to this shooting in San Anntonio. Beminio and Martin share an article because of the coincidence of being shot and killed in the same city on the same day. 2016 shootings of Des Moines police officers. Public attention, and media coverage do focus on the deliberate targeting of police officers in cases like these, where the officer is simply sitting in the patrol car, or writing a traffic ticket, when a guy with a gun arrives out of nowhere and shoots the officer. Resulting coverage and public concern produces the kind of coverage that supports keeping an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I have just added a section (which has been subsequently shortened) with a bunch of references about a Texas Judge who suggested on Facebook that the suspect be lynched, then quickly deleted it. There has been coverage in Texas and beyond and also comment on its significance in light of the election of Donald Trump and the atmosphere in the US. I suspect there will be more coverage to come and suggest that the coverage of the crime and the aftermath is sufficient under GNG. EdChem (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While I thank you for this edit, you have to be careful about making it undue and using reliable sources. I had to shorten it considerably; this is not about a judge's certain comment regarding the shooter's race, it's about the shooting death of a respected police officer. Parsley Man (talk) 04:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Much would be better in an article on the judge, I admit, so I can buy undue, and moving it to a stand alone article seems likely - need to make sure there's enough on him for it not to be BLP1E, though. Irked about your RS comment, though, they are newspaper sources (all with much the same coverage) plus the website where he works (for his election), plus a comment / opinion that has a strong perspective but is presented as such and not in WP voice, on the aspect that could well lead to ongoing coverage. I presume it is the last one that concerns you? EdChem (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly call Occupy Democrats and Atlanta Black Star RS... Parsley Man (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who Atlanta Black Star is, it came up on Google News and I clicked it because Atlanta is not in TX and I was looking for out-of-state sources to show breadth of coverage; it looked like a newspaper and the coverage is in line with other sources in this case. Poor choice on my part, perhaps. Occupy Democrats is certainly opinionated but its words were attributed as opinion to their source and not used for factual assertions in WP's voice. My opinion stands, however, that the incident and related coverage adds to the GNG case for keeping this article. EdChem (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the word "Black" present in the source and the content in question, I had my doubts that the reporting was going to be objective and removed it based on that suspicion. Parsley Man (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Person gets murdered with a firearm in the USA. Happened 13,468 times in 2015 and I don't think this year is much different. so this is routine news. WP:NOTNEWS. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the topic seems to be evolving and its notability might become more evident in the near future. → Call me Razr Nation 23:21, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Coins[edit]

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

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

Non-notable game met with "o.k" response in 2014 and shut down in 2015. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination, I cannot find any indication of Notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The article is notable, I have referenced several pages with clear proof of this game. LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Neutral. Mere existence doesn't equate to notability. If it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see below. I've already found at least 5 third party reliable sources that help it meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 03:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The additional sources aren't great (they include a tweet, a forum posting, and other trivial mentions) but the article now isn't in the state it was in when first nominating, so I'm withdrawing my delete recommendation. My objection to considering the project page WP:VG/S as an "official" guideline that appears to have reached that distinction by fiat rather than discussion in the broader Wikipedia community, is a topic for a different discussion. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the Twitter/Sega Forum sources were there prior to me rewriting the article, and I only kept them because they were the only ones I could find verifying the game's removal from the App Store. I don't like using them either, but first party sourcing is usable to a limited degree, and its only there to source that non-controversial claim. It wasn't one of the sources added with the intention to prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 19:08, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I found a number of sources with a consensus for being reliable per WP:VG/S, that dedicated entire articles to the subject. Gronk Oz, Anachronist - do the below sources change your mind on this?

1. http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Dragon+Coins/review.asp?c=59544
2. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-05-08-segas-new-mobile-game-dragon-coins-is-2p-machines-meets-pokemon
3. https://www.engadget.com/2014/05/08/coin-dozer-meets-rpg-in-segas-dragon-coins-for-ios-and-android/
4. http://www.gamezebo.com/2014/05/12/dragon-coins-review/

Additionally, I found https://www.techinasia.com/dragon-coins-sea-review-bringing-meaning-to-the-coin-dozer - which isn't listed at WP:VG/S but looks reliable and discussed the game in detail. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with these sources is that they look like routine coverage of Sega's products. Routine coverage doesn't confer notability. An analogy would be a wine reviewed in Wine Spectator, a reliable source, but it reviews 10,000 wines per year, so any obscure non-notable wine has a 99.9% chance of getting reviewed at some point. With the exception of Engadget, those sources above exist almost completely for the purpose of reviewing games (and the author of the Engadget piece isn't even listed on their staff, he's no more reliable a source than you or me). The point is, every game from a publisher like Sega will get at least a couple of reviews from a reliable source eventually, regardless of actual notability; in essence the game is being reviewed because Sega put it out, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. I'm not convinced that this coverage is more than routine. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So ... @Sergecross73: are there any better sources, which are not just standard reviews when the game was released? --Gronk Oz (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Polygon also wrote an article about the game, which is another RS from WP:VG/S. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dedicated product reviews are not routine coverage - they discuss the subject in significant detail, as the GNG requires. There's a consensus at the WikiProject level that they are reliable and go towards proving notability. There is no requirement that says video games need to break into the mainstream media in order for the sources to count towards meeting the GNG. No one suggested anything remotely close to INHERITED, so I have no idea why you chose to go on that tangent. The argument is that third party reliable sources wrote detailed articles dedicated entire to the subject. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My analogy with Wine Spectator was to demonstrate that dedicated product reviews are indeed routine coverage when those reviews appear in publications that exist solely for the purpose of reviewing those products. That's what we have here. Routine coverage. Are there any non-notable Sega games? My point about WP:NOTINHERITED was to suggest that just because a reviewer thinks a game is worth reviewing just because Sega released it, doesn't mean we have to. We need to be making a meaningful distinction between routine coverage and something actually notable. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there are non-notable Sega games. Look at lists like List of Sega mobile games or List of Sega arcade games and see that there's plenty of unlinked titles. Only half of the sources provided above were reviews, and all of them presented write more than just product reviews. I have saved a ton of articles at AFD using equal or even less sourcing for products like video games or albums, so I would be absolutely shocked if this sort of sourcing would be shrugged off simply as "routine" and the article deleted. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from what I can gather, while it was a short-lived failure in English regions, it was considered a success in Japan, where it had launched several years earlier. [1], [2] Sergecross73 msg me 03:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Wikiproject has some pertinent discussion of this issue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Review sites: "The most important sources for most video game articles are the reviews of the game itself." This is different to articles on more conventional topics. Can we get some involvement from the folks at that WikiProject, who would be more familiar with their standards?--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the stance of the WikiProject (I've been active there for the last 6-7 years). In the video game industry, the most detailed commentary from third parties is often from the reviews, as they often consist of detailed breakdowns of the game's make up - which is why I so strongly reject Anachonistic's notion of the coverage being "routine". I am surprised WP:VG hasn't commented more here - its one of the most active WikiProjects on the website - but hopefully we'll get more input soon. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did a page in a Wikiproject become an official guideline? Here is the edit that made it so — without any formal discussion in the wider Wikipedia community, as far as I can determine. Nevertheless, if the coverage of this game isn't considered routine, that's fine. I would maintain that any source that exists solely for the purpose of publishing reviews constitutes routine coverage. I want to see more sources from outside that niche. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Yep, I think these references are just enough to show notability. Many of them appear to paraphrase the press release, but not entirely and some, especially pocketgamer, are original. --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have done a complete rewrite - standardizing the structure, adding over 10 refs, and expanding it out of stub status. Please look it over prior to commenting. It's by no means perfect, but is far different than when it was first nominated, and certainly clears the bar for the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:53, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Following Sergecross73's rewrite and source additions. Seems to clearly pass GNG. -- ferret (talk) 16:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Thanks User:Sergecross73! LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 17:42, 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 00:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hindi version[edit]

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

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

This was discussed at RFD before as a redirect to Hindi, these are pretty close to being WP:PTMs. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 21:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is one of those unfortunate wannabe "dab" pages that just doesn't get it. It can't decide if it's a list or a multiple redirect or what. I can't imagine it's of any use to anyone. Put the poor thing out of its misery. — Gorthian (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with Gorthian; a disambiguation page that actually would cause more confusion than it could likely solve Spiderone 10:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with Gorthian. → Call me Razr Nation 23:31, 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 no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has been established in this discussion. Discussion regarding the article, such as merges, which have been occurring on the article's talk page, can continue there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kerio Technologies[edit]

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

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

Per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), this company and its products do not have the required depth of coverage to be notable. Wikipedia is not a free advertising site for unremarkable commercial organisations. Not to put to fine a point on it, Kerio, the orphaned baby elephant whose mother was killed by poachers has more & higher rated independent coverage than does this company. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur with non. Non-notable small company, no independent references given nor found. Fails WP:CORP. MB 22:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MB: How about the sources provided in the previous nomination for deletion linked to from the top of this page? And the one before that (there were apparently two previous tries to delete this article)? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I could not find evidence of notability or significance; I was able to find minor mentions in trade press and a lot of self-promotion but nothing that would amount to WP:CORPDEPTH. Given the on-going (potential) COI issues this page & the walled garden of product pages (see COIN entry, deletion is the way to go. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - the company itself doesn't seem very notable, the products they sell seem to be marginally notable. I do think the product pages should be merged into the company page, which might just make it work keeping. Shritwod (talk) 09:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some articles about Kerio products from PC Magazine (2004 and 2005): [3], [4], [5] Merger of other articles about software from Kerio may be viable solution. Pavlor (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the top source is the about us page of Kerio.
  • merge = delete I suggest we allow this page to die, and the more promenent of the product pages can add in any RS about the actual company, which has little/no notabilty appart from the products. Some of the citations are usenet posts, the about us page, 3 are untranslated posts about a show. Little would need to be incorporated, so instead of leaving this for another group to address, we should delete and transfer the about us stuff to a section of the product article. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Darkstar1st: I see this opposite: keep this article and merge articles about products. There is only one usenet post used to reference claim about continuity of development Tiny/Kerio (weak source, of course), about page references only cities with their offices (with is OK, I think), third clearly non-RS source is used for date of incorporation. As of "3 are untranslated posts about a show", if you mean German language refrences, these quite well show introduction of new products and naming changes (all these pages are owned by big German media houses). Pavlor (talk) 11:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete widely fails WP:CORP. Widefox; talk 02:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep (per DGG) iff the product articles are merged - giving enough sources for some content a better option than the odd borderline notability stranded product article. Widefox; talk 11:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• SNOW Delete as a snowball's chance in hell given there's not only blatant advertising attempts but there's nothing in fact here for actual substance especially since the one Keep vote above says "this company is not notable", the 2011 AfD was troubled as it is because no one actually fully took the concerns seriously, let alone considered actions. SwisterTwister talk 00:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. and merge the various articles on the products into this article. They have substantial reviews, so it is appropriate that there be some coverage. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with DGG. There are reviews of their software (I added examples linked above to the article). Best solution would be to merge all Kerio products into this article. Pavlor (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another reference iX magazine/heise.de: [6] Pavlor (talk) 07:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another one... The Register: [7] Pavlor (talk) 08:10, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Gibson[edit]

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

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, obituaries and one or two local news reports, none of which establish notability. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Wikipedia's long, contentious history of editing surrounding World’s Oldest People topics continues, as this discussion is being canvassed off-wiki by community banned user Ryoung122. The link is blacklisted on Wikipedia, so you have to delete the space after the first period for the link to work. I also have a screen shot saved if needed: z3 invisionfree.com/The_110_Club/index.php?showtopic=14494&st=345 Canadian Paul 17:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C.P., I've taken the liberty of adjusting your psuedo-link so that people can copy-paste it as I think you intended. I'm thrilled to say I get my very own starring role as villain in RY's rant! EEng 20:55, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I'm not sure what I intended, so I'll take your adjustment as an improvement. Thanks! Canadian Paul 19:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Canadian Paul, how exactly is the link "canvassing"? Canvassing, if I recall correctly, is urging people to go to an AfD and vote in a certain way. Please note that in the message you are referring to, that is not done. Moreover, I do not see any SPA votes having come in after that post (30 November) had been made. In other words, I am not sure what you are trying to achieve other than trying to manipulate the closing admin by wrongly accusing someone of canvassing. Fiskje88 (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly obviously canvassing (of which Young has a long history) and ineffective canvassing is still canvassing. EEng 00:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then you must have a VERY different view on matters, because I see absolutely none of it. Goodnight. Fiskje88 (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my view that counts, but that of WP:CANVASS, which lists among inappropriate behaviors:

• Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)

Both are present here. EEng 00:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly fail to see how "both are present here;" I see no persuasion at all to join in any discussion, nor do I see this comment aimed at any Wikipedia-users at all. Therefore, I do not see any reason at all to change my opinion regarding this supposed "canvassing" attempt. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think there is no need to delete this article. Being second oldest person in America and also the third oldest person in the world out of 6.5 billion (at 2006, the year of the death of Susie Gibson) is good enough and record holders of the third oldest person in the world usually have an article. Also this article is well sourced (see article).

For the above reasons, Certainly passes WP:G, WP:BIO and not meet WP:ROUTINE.

There is also a method of marge to List of supercentenarians from the United States#People (Just as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arbella Ewing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby Harris).

I think this page is more important and more notable than Ella Schuler's page. Susie Gibson was the world's third oldest person. However, Ella Schuler was only the 7th oldest. Ella Schuler's page is should be deleted than this article.Inception2010 (talk) 10:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about Ella Schuler here. If you think her article should be deleted then feel free to nominate it for deletion. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in the above keep addresses the sourcing which is what determines notability as per the quoted guidelines. You've argued what should be notable, not what is according to our guidelines. When you look at the sourcing, we have a single obituary and a book that we can't review (but probably has her in a table somewhere). That's not even close to enough. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book can be read through Google books preview and it doesn't help with notability at all. I looked quickly and it appears she gets a total of 4 (out of 322) pages that simply tell us how her age was validated. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. The above vote summed this up nicely. Despite Inception2010 saying so, this article is not "well sourced" at all and would fail the guidelines to biographies at the WP:WOP Wikiproject. CommanderLinx (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update following addition of sources. Nothing to change my vote. A second ref to a book that covers her in 4 pages, another we can't read (but appears she was interviewed for) and an article that tells us three things (she's 115, read the Bible and her mother died at 104). CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep A Strong Claim Of Notability, With Appropriate Reliable And Verifiable Sources To Back It Up, In An Article Providing Significant Coverage Of The Subject.
• Comment Really? Susie Gibson isn't notable? I beg to differ. She died over 10 years ago so sourcing will be more difficult, but not a reason to delete this page.--124.108.219.196 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC) — 124.108.219.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • A lack of sourcing isn't a reason to delete a page? Really? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the WP guidelines mentioned above. Please note that the ones who have voted 'delete' in this AfD are as much biased as the people they tag as 'SPAs', as these "delete" voters have continuously been appearing in AfD in this topic for the past year and a half; in other words, the two 'delete' votes have not come from any random third party. Now, I understand that not every supercentenarian who has lived should have his/her own Wikipedia article - in fact, I am also in favour of trimming the Longevity project here down to a sizeable amount of articles - but I do not think it is necessary to delete Mrs Gibson's article; a quick Google search reveals that Mrs Gibson still appears in newspaper articles as recently as 2015, has appeared in foreign newspapers as well, and is still commonly referred to in supercentenarian research. Therefore, I see no point in deleting her article. Fiskje88 (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do feel free to present examples of substantial coverage in reliable sources. I'll happily swap my opinion if you can find what I could not. One-line mentions, of course, do not assist in establishing notability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same as above, provide the sources (in the article, not in this AFD discussion) that would make it so she satisfies the notability guidelines and I'll change my vote. Because as it stands, this article doesn't even satisfy the WP:WOP Wikiproject guidelines to biographies let alone GNG. I'm also interested to see what you found because all I could find were unreliable sources (forum posts and Wiki mirrors), duplicate obituaries and table listings which doesn't help. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, I'll do so later this weekend. :) Thank you for trying to think along! Fiskje88 (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update: sources added. :) Fiskje88 (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not seeing anything significant to change my vote. One book we can't read. I think she was interviewed for it but not sure how extensive it was. Another ref is from that Supercentenarians book I commented on earlier (four pages telling us how her age was validated). The last article doesn't tell us much (other than she is 115, read the Bible and her mother lived to 104). So not changing my vote here. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are all entitled to different opinions; to me, a person who was considered relevant enough to be discussed in two books (one of which a scientific one) and whose life was covered in foreign media outlets deserves a standalone article, as apparently there is something intriguing about her life. I do not really buy your argument of "[o]ne book we cannot read", as anyone who has taken the trouble to buy the book can actually read about her; there is more to life than (usually) short-lived Internet sources. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Susie was a well-known supercentenarian known for staying active into extreme old age. /Chimney148 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chimney148 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC) — Chimney148 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Even the LA Times piece, other than giving the fact that she died and at what age, plus that she lived in one house for 80 years, is entirely concerned with other old people. The article recites the usual unremarkable minutiae such as remembering the Titanic. NOPAGE. EEng 04:52, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see a strong reason to delete the story, it isn't read a lot, but it's read. I did a little editing and can add a bit more to the article. There are some primary sources that can clarify some points - which I would not normally use, and generally advise against, but I think it will help tell her story a bit better. I will also add some additional content from secondary sources and see if that helps round out her story a bit better.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a bit more content in books and newspaper articles - the article is almost 3 times the size it was when I started. There may be too much personal information there - but if it stays it's easy to prune unnecessary information.--CaroleHenson (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The ref section is now a sea of primary sources and laughable passing mentions (my favorite: The Joy of Pickling, 3rd Edition: 300 Flavor-Packed Recipes for All Kinds of Produce from Garden or Market). No one's going to wade through this to find out if there is, indeed, GNG-qualifying material there. Could you please list the qualifying sources here? EEng 20:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, please look again. I removed the two census references. As I said above, I very rarely use primary sources (WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD). But, they have been removed.

I found so many other sources since I first mentioned I was tackling the expansion of the article. I also removed the pickle book source, just because it's not worth discussion about it. All the rest are books and news sources, like LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, and some local newspapers.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you're not getting this.

• The first source's entire coverage of the subject reads

Susie Potts Gibson, the youngest of three U.S. women verified to be 115, died Thursday, according to Nancy Paetz, a granddaughter. Gibson died of natural causes at an assisted living facility in Tuscumbia, Ala., where she was a resident from about 106, Paetz said. For many years before that, Gibson lived alone in the house that had been her home for about 80 years.

• The second and third sources are the same, and are apparently Robert Young's story of how he looked up the subject in the US Census.
• The fourth and sixth sources appear to be the same, though there's no preview.

Please list the sources that qualify under GNG. Hint: that won't include the one that tells us:

Ms. PAETZ: If you asked her what her secret was, she would tell you that it was probably three things. One, she lived for her pickles. She ate lots and lots of pickles. CHADWICK: Okay, pickles is one. Ms. PAETZ: And vinegar. CHADWICK: Vinegar. Ms. PAETZ: We kept, every time we visited, we had to go and buy big jars of vinegar, and big jars of pickles. CHADWICK: How did she take her vinegar? Ms. PAETZ: Well, she put it on everything. I don't think she ever just drank it, but she certainly drank the pickle juice.

EEng 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The first source is the Los Angeles Times article.^[1] That content is:

• I have know idea what you mean about them being the same, because I don't think you saw the entire LA Times article. I don't know about the second source - that was used by someone else, I just completed the citation information. The third source is Maier, et. al. - And I think that was the source with the most information - Gibson was discussed in several / a number of places in the book.^[2]

• Same thing, no idea what you mean about it being the same.

• Ok, is the pickle and vinegar thing silly? - yes. Would it normally be in a WP article? - no, absolutely not. Is this a different case? - yes, IMO. It's like the guy from Russia who lived so many years because he ate yogurt. It was his thing. The pickle and vinegar business is written up many places about her. Who knows that she's not right? She lived to 115. However, as I said after the rewrite - some of the content can absolutely be pruned - there is more personal information than I put in an article.

• I think you were on the same Donald Trump article as I was. I am extremely reluctant to make a list about what constitute good sources... Are you saying that the list of sources is not sufficient?

• I gave this article my best college try to save it. You might not like it, and others might not like it. If the general perception is that the rewrite is insufficient to show her notability, then, that's the way it is.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

added clarification in last sentence - underlined.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies re the content of the LA Times piece -- looks like the page got stuck during loading so I only saw the first bit of it. But the problem is the same: there may be the kind of coverage in here qualifying for GNG, but it's drowning in trivia. If you're "reluctant to make a list" of which are the qualifying sources, no one else is going to go to the trouble. EEng 00:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I totally get that there is a lot of personal information. My perception \ question was: What is the sort of person like who lives to be 115 years old? And, so I came at it differently than I ever had with a WP article. And, it was the detail that helped make me understand her better.

That said, I am very happy to trim out some of the detail.

What I said about sources earlier was: All the rest are books and news sources, like LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, and some local newspapers. It is natural that she would be in books like Earth's Elders, Supercentenarians. None of the other sources, and probably the local newspapers are going to establish WP:GNG, right?--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just remembered, she was also interviewed by NBC, on NBC News, and I'm pretty sure on the Today show - but I must not have felt good about the source for the Today show, because it's not in the article. If I had access to archives, I am sure that I could find more.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting you trim the article. I'm asking you to show us which sources qualify the subject under WP:GNG. EEng 01:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're looking for. This is not a process I am generally involved in. I have nominated a couple of articles for deletion and a COI issue, and due to the backlog I just am doing some quid pro quo input. Anyway, guessing what more you are asking for, I am adding links to: LA Times, Chicago Tribune, NPR, Earth's Elders (I think someone used their own book, but here's their website), Supercentenarians and NBC News was mentioned in Supercentenarians. I also added two sources from Schmarrnintelligenz [8] and [9] to the article. Is this what you're needing?--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and did some copy editing to smooth out some of the details. It's a smoother read, I think, now. And, although there is still detail about her personal life, hopefully we don't have to send in search and rescue for anyone drowning in trivia. : ) ...mostly laughing at myself.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only the LA Times piece comes even close to substantial coverage. The rest, of those visible, are passing mentions, in most cases just an entry in a list. This isn't what GNG calls for. EEng 18:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that some of the sources are passing mentions, like the Guinness Records book and a few other that she's just in a list. But, you just have to look at the reference section to see that there are several sources with more than passing mentions, including the multiple pages/citations for Supercentenarians and Earth's Elders. The NPR article was about her. If the list was supposed to be based upon % of content - then I would have made a different list. Like I said, I wasn't sure what you were looking for. I think you've already made up your mind - and I really didn't need to put together a list to begin with. And, that's fine. If you don't find her notable, we'll just call that a difference of opinion. I don't agree, but I do respect where you are coming from.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for so many reasons. Still No 29 on the List of the verified oldest women. An encyclopedia is something about history. Old people are living history, their lives proof that history books are not only a waste of paper. If our notability guidelines really showed the need to delete her honorable entry (what I do not see), then we really needed to improve our notability guidelines. Notability does exist beyond New York Times, Fox News and CNN.[10][11][12][13] While certainly canvassing from outside WP is a bad thing, we must not let us push into the opposite direction from them. --SI 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source is a transcript of the LA Times article (and a copyvio at that), the second is just a list of names, the third is in Dutch (? -- which is fine, but I have no idea what it says), and the fourth is a dissertation, which is not an RS. EEng 01:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• More sources:

• http://www.demogr.mpg.de/books/drm/007/3-3.pdf (Max-Planck-Gesellschaft)
• http://www.daggy.name/aodp/2006aodp.htm
• https://www.geni.com/projects/World-s-oldest-people/10683
• http://www.tngenweb.org/cocke/calfeetree.htm
• http://www.grg.org/Adams/L/USA.HTM
• Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says: Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
• Wikipedia:Notability (people) says: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. ... Yes, managing to live that long is certainly a contribution in the speciic field of gerontology. --SI 15:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These "sources" are laughable, or lists, or both (are you really offering as a source a website on which people bet who will die first? [14]) and living a long time is no more a "contribution to gerontology" than surviving cancer is contribution to oncology. EEng 16:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first item looks to be the chapter of a book written by Young, which someone already used as a source in the article. I see no issue with that source. I agree that none of the others should be used.

EEng, Did you see my posting above, made at 01:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC) with the summary of the sources for WP:GNG?--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a few more sources, but I don't know that they add to GNG because they are just bits of information. She's in a Guinness Record book of 2013, a New York Times article. I've added a bit of content from the New York Times article and the citations to the article and I am going to add a bit from Anniston Star. She's in other "lists" articles like this LA Times article, mention in Bettie Wilson's obituary, and more articles published in journals about chapters from Supercentenarians, but I'm not finding any other new content.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, CaroleHenson, they are much appreciated. :) I find it interesting to see how someone deemed "not notable" (according to others reacting here) can still be retrieved in as little as 21 sources over ten years after her death; the sheer variety of sources - ranging from reliable, scientific publications to extensive obituaries and televised interviews by news crews - also goes to show that people from all layers of society - scientists, journalists, and even what some here would disdainfully call "fans" - did feel that there was something worth reporting about her. Moreover, a citation as "laughable" (a comment made by participants here who even feel that notable supercentenarians such as Sarah Knauss are not worthy of their standalone article as "age alone is no sign of notability", even when Wikipedia consensus strongly disagrees with them^[1]) as the pickles and onions story is still a great example of oral history, a tradition considered a "field of study"^[2]. Fiskje88 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Fiskje88, if nothing else, I really enjoyed working on this article. More than most. I don't in any way regret the time spent trying to save the article, that's for sure.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Florence Reeves[edit]

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

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, obituaries that do not establish notability or confirm any claim that her career outside of longevity was notable. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit here can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or Redirect to List of British supercentenarians where she is listed per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject. Non-notable and no significant coverage in sources. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lack of sustained coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Yash! 22:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese exonyms[edit]

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

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

Not enough RS for verification Meatsgains (talk) 20:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, don't see anything wrong with this article. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough RS to confirm that this meets WP:GNG/WP:LISTN. Even if such sources are presented, this article is dubious in terms of WP:NOTDICT. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll just add that we have a category structure Category:Exonyms which includes a lot of Fooian exonyms, like this. I've added it to the category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We seem to have consensus that main lists of Fooian-language exonyms are encyclopedic. That we would delete the article for a major language like Japanese simply because the article requires improvement is not a valid deletion rationale, that I can see. (Also WP:NOTDICT is generally applied to articles on individual words or phrases, in my experience.) Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: there's a relevant previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European exonyms. – Uanfala (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• TRANSWIKI Transwiki to Wikiversity, categorize it under linguistics or Japanese. Michael Ten (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep-I actually typed this in as a search term just now, and lo and behold it was just created this week. Useful and in line with similar articles. Sourced and expanded, def keep.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: this article exists in German, Japanese, Chinese and ko:나라 이름의 한자 표기 목록.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in principle this is sourceable from dictionaries, so I do not think the claim of lack of reliable sources stands up. Similar articles exist already: see List of European exonyms which is a list of such articles. There are dozens of them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't do Japanese, but I have often found the lists in various different European languages useful in gathering / distinguishing information. Like most lists (see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists), this is not an "encyclopedic" article but part of the reference structure or apparatus that makes for having better articles and where WP:PAPER definitely applies. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:21, 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 delete, criterion G4. First AfD was fine; no need for a second discussion over the same text. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Skippa da Flippa[edit]

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

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

He doesn't appear to meet the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines. Only one source isn't iTunes/Spinrilla, five mix tapes released (digital download only), mentions in Gnews appear to be trivial coverage only. Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that this was a recreation of a deleted article. Nominating for speedy delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:43, 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 00:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Onie Ponder[edit]

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

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage, primarily obituaries, as well as one or two local interest pieces, but nothing that establishes the notability of the subject. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. Also, "File:Onie Ponder.jpg" was nominated for speedy deletion as copyvio. Dman41689 (talk · contribs), uploader of File:Onie Ponder.jpg, was permanently editing blocked in November 2015.Inception2010 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom. Also fails WP:GNG as all sources are from Florida which would be local coverage since she lived in the area. I'm not seeing a good redirect since she isn't old enough to be mentioned at List of supercentenarians from the United States. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:20, 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 00:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Christopher[edit]

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

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

No evidence of the type of sustained coverage that would meet the guidelines at WP:N; most of what is here and findable online is routine coverage and I do not see much in the way of non-trivial coverage outside of obituaries, which do not establish notability. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards; numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted based on their individual merits. Thus we default to the general notability guidelines and any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 20:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. 7th oldest person in the USA and 11th oldest person in the world is not enough for stand-alone page creation.Inception2010 (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Non-notable. The three references are all from Georgia newspapers which would be local coverage as she lived there. Not seeing a good redirect as she isn't old enough to be listed on the US list. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:31, 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eatsa[edit]

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

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

pure advertising, no indication of notability at this time. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Article could use some cleanup but there is more than enough coverage in reliable sources to establish this restaurant's notability. Meatsgains (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with comments from Meatsgains. Daylen (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Five sources, including New York Times, TechCrunch, and Investor's Business Daily support article meets WP:GNG. N2e (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as receiving clear, national non-trivial reliable source coverage, definitely not "no indication of notability". I was notified of this AfD discussion from N2e's talk page, though I had not seen this article before Appable (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Does not have a promotional tone and meets WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with considerations to policies WP:SPAM and WP:NOT which damn WP:CORPDEPTh and everything it would suggest because policy itself can and will remove anything unsuitable for Wikipedia and this fits it, since it's simply advertising for a year-old company, the Keep votes here as it is either say "per the other user" or then in fact say "sources exist" (these sources offered are literally in fact republished PR about the company and it's clear because the listed websites themselves list it, either casually or boldly). ::Therefore it's clear this itself, regardless of it being locally known, is only existing for advertising which is why policy allows removal of it, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG be damned. Things like these are quite simple as it is, because of the sheer amount of PR here that only consists of the company's own activities such as listing what they are planning or what they claim their own actions will be, deletion is quite simple here. SwisterTwister talk 01:01, 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 Nom withdrawal. Accidental nomination meant to PROD tag (non-admin closure) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stormie[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO, and WP:BLP Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 17:54, 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 no consensus. No consensus after a month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pratap A. Rana[edit]

Pratap A. Rana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Producer with questionable notability that is also a rather non inherited issue. Apparently his daughter is notable in the Indian film community which seems to be this guys claim to fame. Due to the fact that he only seem to produce 2 films over 60 years ago there seems to be very little info to be found. Either a delete or a redirect be the best. Wgolf (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf Pratap A. Rana produced two films 'Vidya' (1948) and 'Jeet' (1949), which are still watched till this date and starred the famouus actors Suraiya and Dev Anand. He also wrote the script of 'Jeet'. There is no issue of being connected with his daughter for fame. He is still remembered for his contribution to Bollywood by his films.

Vkjoshi123 (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC) Vkjoshi123[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment His notability claim comes from being a producer of those two films. The age of the two films he made doesnt matter. The question is if those two movies are notable and were/are subject of coverage in significant independent reviews and media. That should be evaluated. Then he would easily pass WP:FILMMAKER. That obv could be a bit hard because such sources are probably offline. Dead Mary (talk) 14:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dead Mary @Dream out loud. Both the films Vidya (film) and Jeet (1949 film) were produced and scripted (Jeet) by Pratap A. Rana and are very notable films. Both are watched keenly to this day. They are both available on You Tube. Superstars of yesteryears Suraiya and Dev Anand acted in both the films. Vkjoshi123 (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in this case as there's simply nothing establishing genuine independent notability apart from those listed works, and none of it suggests otherwise better hence delete is the only sensible option. SwisterTwister talk 06:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Independent notability is not necessarily a problem when dealing with movie producers (criterion #3) if the work itself is notable and significant, as two of his are ( 1 and 2). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:35, 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 no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMar's Donuts[edit]

LaMar's Donuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced. not notable Rathfelder (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This regional chain might be notable, based on sources like "LaMar's closes landmark donut shop" (Associated Press/Topeka Capital Journal, 2003), which describes the original Kansas City store as a "landmark", and the 2005 AP obituary of Ray Lamar, which calls him "doughnut king of the Midwest" (ascribing that description to Jay Leno). The article needs more such reliable sources to make notability clearer. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:32, 3 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky (Director)[edit]

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

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

Autobiography of young film director, not yet notable per WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. I can only find passing mentions of him and his work online in English and Tamil, not the substantial coverage required for an article on a film director. Wikishovel (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Wikishovel (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Subject lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 20:41, 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. czar 19:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jindua[edit]

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

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

Per several source searches, this Indian film does not meet aspects of WP:MOVIE or WP:GNG at this time. News sources are only providing passing mentions at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yes, it fails WP:NF and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk] 02:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per WP:NF and WP:GNG. RG | (talk) 08:58, 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. WP:SOFTDELETEish given the low input despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yatton Rugby Football Club[edit]

Yatton Rugby Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability#Clubs Cabayi (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article does not give any indication of what makes this club notable, and the sourcing is lacking.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:04, 15 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 19:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Hollywood[edit]

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

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

Vanity autobiography of very non notable individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:17, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete membership in the organization he is part of is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to keep Emperors/Empresses in the major Imperial Court systems, which are charitable organizations. Bearian (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in outcomes about keeping gimmicky fake titles from local charity balls. If there has been such a precedence it should be stopped due to a lack of notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Past afds. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatianna (drag queen). Deleted. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Kaiser (entertainer). Kept based on sources found. No Common outcomes. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No, WP:OUTCOMES doesn't seem to suggest we keep this and I'm very relieved to find that. WP:GNG should apply and in this case it doesn't seem to. Thincat (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yeah, this person clearly doesn't have the sort of notability beyond blogs and local media to meet WP:GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I can't see how WP:OUTCOMES has any bearing at all. Nope. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fujifilm X10[edit]

Fujifilm X10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Fujifilm X20 and Fujifilm X30; they are successive models of a single quite popular thoug not particularly innovative camera line. It makes much more sense to cover them together: the data can be shown compactly in acomaprative fashion, and there will be sufficient reviews to show notability . I'm not sure about the best name for the merged article. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and oppose merge. One article per product is the established convention across Wikipedia, and has almost universally been applied to camera articles. Arbitrary decisions about which articles are allowed to stand alone are rather problematic, especially when economic interests are involved. Note that I fully support having summary articles - we have these at all levels - Fujifilm products, X series products, etc. As DGG has said, there is no particularly slick name offering itself in this case. Convention would suggest "Fujifilm X10 series". Samsara 08:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all three cameras. One article per product is absolutely not an established convention. If that were true, Wikipedia would be a catalog, and it's WP:NOT. The guideline Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) specifialy says, at WP:PRODUCT "Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion." At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yamaha FZ700 this was discussed in depth and I found numerous examples of deletions on the grounds that each individual model of motorcycle did not merit an article, and zero examples of motorcycle articles kept because they were a model, without also meeting WP:GNG. The misconception about product models is an ongoing problem. Part of this is due to the formatting issue created when you have three ((Infobox camera))s or ((Infobox motorcycle))s and not enough text to support the vertical space they take up when stacked. We need a technical solution to this, which is possible. But the proliferation of articles for each model of something has to be beaten back whenever possible. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • without also meeting WP:GNG which you have not established isn't actually true here. Also, since you mention rendering problems with merged articles, do you understand how merging affects hProduct tags and mobile browsing? Samsara 20:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why should we care about hproduct tags? Which notability policy says we have to acoomodate hproduct tags? Seems like any attempt to make a 1:1 correlation between articles and hproduct tags is a flagrant contradiction of the WP:NOTCATALOG policy. The documentation says "The hProduct microformat can assist consumers, manufacturers and retailers in a number of ways". Wikipedia does not exist to serve the needs of consumers, manufacturers, or retailers. If you must make one page per product for hformat to work, they need to fix that bug in hformat. You can't ask the world to change to fit your structured data scheme. Your format must change to describe the world. As far as GNG, this product has received zero coverage in any sources, except product reviews. The policy WP:NOTCATALOG says " Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. "

      Also mobile devices? If your mobile device browser can't reasonably display Honda Super Cub or Ford Mustang or Crazy Taxi (series) correctly, your device has a bug. You need a new browser or a new smartphone. Perhaps try one of the several Wiki viewer apps on the market. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

      • Mainstream media sources? No problem. The Telegraph, Daily Mail, FOCUS and Spiegel all wrote full length articles about it. [15] [16] [17] [18] Maybe do a little bit of research yourself next time. Samsara 19:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't seem to understand that routine product reviews do not establish notability. Personal remarks like "Maybe do a little bit of research yourself next time" are just rude, and do not add to the notability of the product. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • What else should one write about a camera other than a review? An opera, perhaps? Please enlighten me! Samsara 20:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A simple WP:BEFORE style search show multiple significant reviews of the camera in mainstream sources like PC Magazine and TechCrunch, and quite in-depth reviews in specialist publications like DP Review and Imaging Resource. This camera is also notable for an early technical fault, the "white orb" problem, which forced a product-wide firmware update: sources include [19], [20], and an SPIE paper. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show notability per WP:GNG. A notable topic and an article with WP:POTENTIAL for improvement suggest keeping the article. I am not opposed to a summary article describing the Fujifilm X-series cameras--indeed we already have one at Fujifilm X-series. But there is plenty of sourcing for a stand alone X10 article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we have to agree to disagree on whether or not any of that equals notablity. The product reviews have already been shown by policy to not add to notability. Bendgate or exploding-Galaxy Note 7-gate is a notable product issue; orbgate is not. It received no attention besides a couple very short blog posts in specialized media. There was a bug, they upgraged the firmaware, bug fixed. There's no reason why all of this can't be covered in an article on all 3 versions in this series.

    A redirect and merge in no way prevents this topic from reaching it's potential. If the X10 portion of the article grows to great size, it can spawn its own article from the redirect. The only argument presented at this WP:POTENTIAL essay is that it might eventually lead to an article that is too long and "constrain encyclopedia expansion". Constrain how? What constraints? It makes no sense. If it does get too long, split it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    • If the X10 portion of the article grows to great size, it can spawn its own article from the redirect. Notability is not assessed by article size. Samsara 07:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, we disagree. Your quote above was only in the context of sales catalog pricing and availability, which is irrelevant here. If product reviews are of sufficient depth and originality/independence that they go way beyond any sales materials, they are independent RS upon which to build an article and count toward notability. I think all four sources mentioned above are in sufficient depth to qualify and the DP Review and Imaging Resource reviews are especially thorough. --Mark viking (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets be realistic about the potential question. Why would anyone now want to write about these cameras, and why would anyone read it?Rathfelder (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there are always people who care about completeness. Samsara 08:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because there are people more interested in cameras than you are? This is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions, per WP:WHOCARES. --Mark viking (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOT does not say reviews can rise to become something more than reviews with extra depth, independence or originality. A review is still a review. And anyway, the reviews we've been shown of the X10 are perfunctory. These review websites routinely crank out these reviews of everything.

        If sources exist which could be used to expand the article, that's potential. If the sources don't exist, we don't keep articles because we hope someday sources will be published. That is not potential, it's speculation and wishful thinking.

        It is true that notability would prevent splitting off an article later -- what I can't figure out is a situation where the quantity of content about the X10 has grown to 5-10 thousand words or more, yet none of it is based on sources that can establish notability. A standalone X10 article would be come possible if something new is found, or is published. Based on what we have now, there is no notability, and no potential beyond a stub. That essay Potential is terrible. It hasn't been updated since 2009, and it clearly doesn't reflect real policy or real guidelines. It's more like an artifact left over from a failed argument on the direction policy would take seven years ago.

        I say this as a Fujifilm fanboy; I'm afraid to admit how much I've spent on the Fuji cameras and lenses sitting here next to me. This X10/20/30 series of closely-related cameras could be a fine article, with interesting information and overall, taken together, the three models are significant. But the differences between the three are trivial, evolutionary changes of one component here, another component there. All these little product perma-stubs are bad content and unhelpful for our readers. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think my question produced a helpful answer. I suggest a merger of the 3 articles would be a sensible solution. The individual items in themselves are not separately very interesting. Taken together they get over the threshold.Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any such consensus here, sorry! Samsara 19:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Because there are always people who care about completeness"? What does that mean? In what way does merging the articles prevent any editor from achieving "completeness"? If you have facts to add to the topic, add them. If some day this camera sub-model becomes notable, and we have so much to say about it that a merged article can't contain it all, we can split it back out. This amounts to nothing more than a desire to have 1 article per product name -- not even distinct products, but one product with three slightly different versions, and 3 slightly different names. Avoiding this nonsense is why the Honda Fit article covers the Honda Jazz car and three different generations which are significantly more different from one another than these three camera model names. Featured articles like Holden Commodore (VE) similarly combine coverage of product variants that appeared over a span of time. This is all for the benefit of the reader. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"significantly more different from one another than these three camera model names" That is your argument? You only looked at the names and decided they weren't sufficiently different? I'm unsure sometimes if you even understand the broader implications of your soundbites. Samsara 20:55, 13 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 03:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nasuni[edit]

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

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

A WP:PROMO page on an unremarkable private tech company. Significant RS coverage cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH; what comes up is largely PR driven link. Created by Special:Contributions/Exdejesus with few other contributions outside of the topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with how this process works, so I might not be putting this in the proper format. I'm curious whether articles about other small private companies in this same market, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTERA_Networks , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzura , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avere_Systems , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StorSimple , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TwinStrata , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riverbed_Technology , are also being considered for deletion. If not, I would find it helpful to learn some of the differences between the acceptable articles and the Nasuni article. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdejesus (talk • contribs) 12:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That other similar topics have their own articles is not valid reason to keep this one. Every article subject needs to prove its notability based on reliable sources to stay on Wikipedia. Articles in published magazines, coverage by renowned news sites, books or scholarly works about article subject are all reliable sources for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see Nasuni article has some references from RS (eg. The Register). I will review these and add more later (if there are more...). Pavlor (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My review of RS in the article:

First The Reg [21]: Mostly company (and its officials) about itself = weak source

Computerweekly [22]: company mentioned 2 times in one paragraph = passing mention as an example = weak source

Second The Reg [23]: mostly company (and its officials) about itself = weak source

Third The Reg [24]: About tests by the company - based on company report = somewhat better, still weak

Conclusion: Although article subject is mentioned in several reliable sources, this coverage is shallow at best.

Another source (not yet in the article; heise.de/iX magazine): [25] This one looks better than current sources (there is talk about limitations etc.) = useable RS Pavlor (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another source (not yet in the article; Ars Technica): [26] Analysis of similar test as in the third The Reg reference, but this time with more content = useable RS Pavlor (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added the references mentioned from heise.de/iX and Ars Technica. Also added reference from InfoStor. Also added a reference to an article about how a notable customer compared solutionsthis reference also talks about the merits of other competitive technologies. Also added reference to Register article containing criticism by competitor TwinStrata. Exdejesus (talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoStor looks useable (not much about Nasuni, but at least something), but I don´t know its reliability. Other added are passing mentions. Despite that, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There are many reliable sources about subject of this article. Although their coverage is somewhat thin, I think they are sufficient to estabilish notability. Pavlor (talk) 16:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree, it is borderline and the article needs work. But they are still around and noticed in the trade press a decent amount, more than just repeating press releases. Needs an update too. W Nowicki (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- the page can be "improved" by removing the sections "History", "Products", "Customers" and "Awards" (i.e. all of them). The sources included are dubious such as Enterprise Strategy Group (self-published); The Register (channeling company news), etc. Once this is performed there would not be much left. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable company, fails WP:ORG. Article is purely promotional. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:29, 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. postdlf (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manipuri films of 2016[edit]

List of Manipuri films of 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

List of films which does not seem to satisfy WP:SAL. Twenty-eight films are listed, but only two have stand-alone Wikipedia articles and none of the rest appear to be Wikipedia notable. No reliable sources are provided for any of the entries including a few which have yet to be released. The article was prodded for deletion, but the prod was challenged. So, I am bringing it to AfD instead. I tried finding independent reliable sources for some of these films, but had no luck. As stated at Talk:List of Manipuri films of 2016#Deletion objection, I have no problem if the community feels merging is more appropriate that deletion, but the only possible merge candidate I can think of is Manipuri Cinema and that article is also not very well sourced to begin with. Merging lots of unsourced content into another poorly sourced article seems to be nothing more than moving the problem from one article to another. Perhaps adding the two entries with stand-alone articles to "Manipuri Cinema" is possible, but it's also questionable whether those two particular films even satisfy WP:NFILM. Finally, it is possible that better sourcing for these films can be found in non-English sources, but I'm not sure where to find them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 11:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- for failure of WP:RS and WP:OR. Multiple articles in the list have previously been deleted as entirely unsourced. As it stands, the list lacks reliable sources and appears to be a singular work of original research. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:38, 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 00:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional food in reality[edit]

Fictional food in reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's an interesting collection, but secondary sources do not seem to say that fictional food itself is a notable topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best sources, a National Geographic article, is about real food in fiction, not fictional food.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also the material about "The Dream of the Red Chamber" seems to be about recreating older dishes mentioned in the novel, not that the dishes were fictional.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fictional Food may be of interest as a precedent. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. This article is non-encyclopedic kruft imo. Impressively assembled, I grant you, but the mere fact that somebody somewhere has prepared a dish described in a work of fiction does not merit a list or article here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Shawn in Montreal's comment above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:14, 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nisson Shkarovsky[edit]

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

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

Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BIO in my opinion. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He appears in the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia and also is mentioned in various articles about the development of opera and ballet in the Soviet Union. There just doesn't seem to be any coverage in English. user:jskarf —Preceding undated comment added 09:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The linked version of the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia is, technically, a wiki, but the main page states (in English) that it is an "online adaptation" of a printed source. Inclusion there and the "Honored Artist" appointment indicates notability, but achieving a better article probably requires more work with printed Russian-language sources. (Contemporary reviews of his work? Obituaries in the daily press or in specialist music periodicals? Discussion of his work in books or journal articles? Let's ping musicologist @Mscuthbert: to see if he can help.) --Hegvald (talk) 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify about the Russian Jewish Encyclopedia, it was originally printed in Moscow in 1995, and was only later put online so that it would be more accessible. Here is the Russian language article about it: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%8D%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jskarf (talk • contribs) 09:45, 13 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. No consensus after almost a month at AFD. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Williams & The Reformation[edit]

Zach Williams & The Reformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There are only two sources cited to demonstrate the band's notability. The second source is a trivial mention of a performance, so it is not any indication of notability. Since there is only one credible source demonstrating notability, this means that the band is not notable per WP:BAND and the article should be deleted. Wikitam331 (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Secondary sources do not establish a strong enough notability for the subject to receive it's own page. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 21:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merge into Zach Williams (musician). Found sources [27][28][29][30][31]. These constitute significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mind change: There seems to be a main article about the singer. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Their first album was reviewed by AllMusic, Blurt magazine and Billboard magazine, and their second album was reviewed by Team Rock, Blurt magazine, and Watauga Democrat newspaper. This clearly shows they merit a standalone article per BAND and GNG.The Cross Bearer (talk | contribs) 19:06, 15 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 merge to Sports in Hyderabad. Although only one participant suggested this merge (and then as a second !vote which technically I should ignore) I think from the comments of participants that this would be an acceptable compromise to all. SpinningSpark 19:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of stadiums in Hyderabad[edit]

List of stadiums in Hyderabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence that this requires a stand-alone list. Hyderabad is just a city in India and this is adequately covered in List of stadiums in India. See WP:LISTCRUFT; this is only likely to be of interest to a small number of people. Spiderone 20:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there's a lot of stadiums in India; this seems like a reasonable split. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see why so much detail is needed. The amount of detail in List of stadiums in India is absolutely fine; if people want more detail then they can click on the individual article. The question is, what makes Hyderabad so special that it would be able to have a stand-alone list capable of meeting WP:GNG? Spiderone 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here is preventing people from making other stand-alone lists for other Indian states. The fact is that there are 177 stadiums in the main list, and if anyone decides to write up some actual prose or include more details on them, it's going to be awfully unwieldy. Splitting into lists like this allows for more detail without overwhelming the main list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hyderabad isn't even a state; it's just a city and only the 5th largest in India. I'm looking through Wikipedia:Viability_of_lists#Being_discriminate and still feel that this list falls on the wrong side of notability. I don't feel that the main India stadium list is too big. Just because a topic is notable, does not mean it needs a list. Common sense and consensus should prevail. Spiderone 22:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad and apologies to you—that'll teach me to trust my memory. I could see an argument for dividing by state, but not by city. That said, much of this content is sourced and could be applicable elsewhere. Merge relevant info to Hyderabad#Sports? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, apology accepted! I wouldn't be opposed to a redirect to Hyderabad with a view to keeping some of the sourced prose. I'm wary that Hyderabad is a featured article and wouldn't want to put any unsourced or unnecessary list content in there. Spiderone 18:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 21:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:LIST. Whenever a list adds no more substantive information that a category would, then the longstanding consensus has been to delete it. I agree wholeheartedly in this case, whatever else happens. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep the sports facilities in the city had hosted lot of notable events including "Military World Games", very first "Afro Asian games" etc and others so I suppose the article shall remain. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One major flaw of your argument is that there are hundreds of cities in the world that have hosted major sporting events at some point in their history; to create these lists is pure WP:LISTCRUFT; the country listings are sufficient. At a stretch, I wouldn't mind listings per state (especially for USA and India) but to do listings for each individual city is ridiculous. Spiderone 10:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be judgmental its not an argument. Any way, if a city can have a list of Malls, Theaters, stores etc etc why not Sports facilities. What is wrong in it ? Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Per WP:LISTN; no indication that the list topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Fenix down (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If article does not meet WP:LISTN; we can improve it rather than deleting it. Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that this has been discussed by independent reliable sources then I will withdraw this AfD. Spiderone 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hyderabad as a plausible search term. Anything about notable stadiums can be discussed there. Smartyllama (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy with this outcome. Spiderone 19:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move or Rename it as Sports in Hyderabad as there is no article on this topic, and it is common with almost every metro-city. I can add text once moving is done. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it into Sports in Hyderabad. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:23, 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 delete. G5 as the (useless) creation by yet another member of this family. Favonian (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UltraSonic[edit]

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

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

non notable whatsit. KDS4444 (talk) 13:50, 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 redirect to List of Gfriend concerts and showcases. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The L.O.L Asia showcase[edit]

The L.O.L Asia showcase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

sources do not indicate significance KDS4444 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – redirect page to List of Gfriend concerts and showcases 86.58.36.145 (talk) 11:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gfriend concerts and showcases – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add a raiontale: This afd has been running for more than a month now, and I doubt relisting is going to give us any other result than no consensus at this point. Although the deletion side has stronger argument IMO, they do not form a consensus here. Yamamoto Ichiro (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla[edit]

Murders of Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Routine capital crime with routine coverage for this kind of event. No substantial coverage since the conviction of the perpetrators in 2015. Content is limited to a one-sentence summary and a pointless quote, so we're not losing brilliant prose here.  Sandstein  10:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Tragic, but not especially notable. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has plenty of notable sources, Washington Post, Daily Mail. Article is notable. Neptune's Trident (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article does not have any citation to The Washington Post, and the tabloid Daily Mail is certainly not a reliable source. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although this is a horrific tragedy for the families and friends of the two victims, it is a fairly routine drug crime that received routine news coverage, including some routine tabloid-style sensationalism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per notable sources such as Washington Post. Overall coverage.BabbaQ (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply @BabbaQ: Can you provide a link to the Washington Post coverage that you mentioned? I do not see it. Thanks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think he may be referring to the Washington Times. Very different. GAB^gab 22:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Times is also a big city daily, and a RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a bit of a stretch. I'd not trust the WT for _anything_ even moderately touching on politics or religion and this is getting close to politics. Hobit (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this case attracted a degree of national coverage because of torture of victims and because of the highly political statement made by murder at trial. [32], [33]. Plus, notoriety was such that the case continues to attract regional press attention, years afterwards [34], [35].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Those two instances of coverage "years afterwards" that you linked to are pretty much textbook examples of passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notoriety is notability, sadly. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this murder 1.) at first drew intense regional attention as a region-wide search for missing teenagers (who, it turned out< had gone to buy drugs. 2.) Drew international attention after the bodies were eventually discovered in a vacant lot (headline ""Empty city hides the dead," ) at a time when Detroit was the emblematic city in a period of media focus on the dacay of American inner cities, 3.) drew attention again as the unusually brutal attention of the killings was revealed, and 4.) drew national attention due to the grandstanding of one of the the murderers at sentencing. I have added a few of the many sources available.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Modest WP:HEYMANN] I did a little expand, source, clarifying the 4 aspects of this murder that mark this as a routine crime and demonstrating that it garnered more than routine coverage (there was national and even international coverage). E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Tragic for the families involved, but really not notable. And the prose is truly awful. KJP1 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HEYMANN, Kudos to Neptune's Trident, doing some heavy lifting to source the article. I suggest that users who weighed in as little as an hour ago need to reconsider in light of sourcing now on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Decent rewrite, but I'm still unconvinced. No aspect of the case (brutal murder, widespread search, etc.) is particularly unusual or important as far as murders go. There's no indication that this case had any importance for e.g. police or judicial practice, or that it received coverage after the sentencing. I also don't get what the odd quote of the perpetrator is supposed to convey. Yes, there is quite a bit of media coverage, but that is to be expected in grisly murders, hence NOTNEWS.  Sandstein  18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• How is that not an IDONTLIKEIT argument? Our general criteria is sources. We have them. Over a sustained time and over as wide a geographic area as is possible. WP:EVENT is met in spades. Hobit (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, and per the lack of secondary sources. There seems to have long been an impression among Wikipedia editors that news reports are secondary sources for the events that they describe. They are considered to be primary sources by historians and everyone else outside of Wikipedia, so that is how we should consider them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Nonsense. We routinely and properly write and keep articles about significant, notable events as they occur. Based on reliable sources, of course. This is not a valid argument for deletion. Presumably this IP is merely unfamiliar with WP standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• At least "this IP" is familar enough with WP standards to know that calling other editors' reasoned arguments "nonsense" is not the way that deletion discussions should be conducted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Your proposal would eliminate about 80% of Wikipedia, making things like the NYT, Washington Post and the like not sources we could use. That's a really really big change you are proposing and moves quite far into IAR. Hobit (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it wouldn't make them into sources we could not use. There are many occasions when such publications publish articles that can be regarded as secondary sources, such as articles reviewing a situation or profiling a person, but day-to-day news reports are primary sources for the events that they describe, and have always been treated as such by historians. Do you want to deprecate WP:NOT#NEWS? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly meets WP:N, so the question is of meeting WP:EVENT and the associated WP:NOTNEWS. Given that we've got sustained coverage on an international level, I've got to say yes it does. Hobit (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mentions in sources over a period of time I believe satisfies project notability rules. ValarianB (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the amount and longevity of the coverage. Hobit's comments are spot-on. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable sources, widespread impact and wide coverage are all present. I'm confused even after reading the above as to how this does not qualify as notable. The phrase, "routine capital crime," did give me my Moment of Surrealism for the day, though, so thank you for that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This has been reported in numerous media outlets and it's obviously not a "routine capital crime", considering all the factors involved. And, yes it was not the Washington Post it's the Washington Times (you could check that in two seconds) however it's not like people are quoting some random blog, reputable sources have been added.Frtlvgo (talk) 14:23, 6 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 00:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alžběta Bačíková[edit]

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

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

All references only contain trivial mentions, fails WP:NBIO. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think Alžběta is a notable person. I was googling through the Czech internet as I'm native speaker of this language and I did not find anything useful for proving notability about her. Also none of references inserted in the article does not prove notability. I think this article should be deleted. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability established. - Darwinek (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, the sources included in our article barely mention her name and I too didn't find any other useful sources. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:39, 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. Limited discussion, but those who contributed felt that no actual reason for deletion was suggested.  Sandstein  22:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria women's national under-23 volleyball team[edit]

Bulgaria women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Precedents under ages volleyball national were deleted by consensus, just like Turkey women's national under-18 volleyball team, Peru women's youth volleyball team, Iran men's national under-19 volleyball team, Iran men's national under-21 volleyball team and Thailand women's national under-20 volleyball team. Our WikiProject tried a new discussion about this, but no new consensus were reached. Osplace 03:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages per above:[reply]

Brazil women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dominican Republic women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Germany women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Italy women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Netherlands women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Russia women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United States women's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brazil women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bulgaria women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dominican Republic women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Italy women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Russia women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serbia women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Turkey women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United States women's national under-20 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brazil women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bulgaria women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dominican Republic women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Germany women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Italy women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Russia women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Serbia women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United States women's national under-18 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brazil men's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Italy men's national under-23 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poland men's national under-21 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Poland men's national under-19 volleyball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)