< 22 October	24 October >

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

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that notability is not established. There is no consensus for a redirect so deletion wins out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Best Actress—All-Girl Release[edit]

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

Recently contrived niche award without significant reliable independent coverage. Little more than negligible generic text coupled with oversize performer images. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Similar award pages have been/are being deleted without much controversy. PROD removed without explanation or article improvement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And you never notified me about the prod because...? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As is too often the case in these discussions, Erpert, you are not telling the truth.[1] The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's for Parody Release; this is All-Girl Release. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 01:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Either you've never read the post I cite, or you have exceptional literacy problems. "Also prodded: XBIZ Award for Best Actress—All-Girl Release, XBIZ Award for Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release". is about as clear as it can be. Your failure to read what is posted to your talk page doesn't justify your making false claims about me or any other editor you disagree with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 03:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Exceptional literacy problems", Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? Where in the world did you get the idea that that would be a proper thing to say? You'd better retract that or you're getting reported. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior outcomes; Wikipedia is not a directory of nominees for insignificant awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Worst-case scenario, this article could be redirected to XBIZ Award. Why would it have to be deleted outright? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Because general practice, across all awards, has been simply to render the phrase as "XBIZ Award for Best Actress—All-Girl Release". There's no reason to single out insignificant porn awards for special treatment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable award, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 00:03, 31 October 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. One "keep" editor is now blocked as a sock and the other's argument appears to have been rebutted. Sandstein 09:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Delaney[edit]

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

Fails WP:RLN & WP:GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 22:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the previously held criteria and is a solid article.Fleets (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It clearly fails the current WP:RLN guidelines; regardless of whether you agree with them or not, this is the established consensus. All of those sources are routine news and match reports, and would not satisfy the GNG. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand your use of the routine link. Per GNG the articles show "Significant coverage", by addressesing the topic directly and in detail. They are "Reliable" as they are almost uniformly divorced from his current club. As before the "Sources" are almost entirely secondary sources, and as such provide the most objective evidence of notability. Again as before being largely newspaper publications they are "Independent of the subject" with the sources being many & numerous.Fleets (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial mentions in match reports are not considered significant coverage. The only source that would probably be considered significant is this one, but given the story is on a blog website, it can hardly be considered reliable. J Mo 101 (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from by using Bill Clinton's band, but you are using an example that would be related to a jazz band that would be a handful of individuals. A breakdown of 30 plus sportspeople on a rugby league field would see it very hard to give a full breakdown of an individuals performance, without newspaper articles turning into essays. As before the sources are both wide-ranging and has ten times the number of sources of the likes of Leroy Cudjoe. Whilst I would not equate the pairs notability, I do stress that Brad Delaney did meet the criteria that was in place at WPRL at the time of the articles creation, and that there is work to update the notability for rugby league currently underway. Within the current wording there is also the flexibility to argue that he has played in the Challenge Cup against a SL club, and with the loose wording he qualified on his debut match.Fleets (talk) 07:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet RL notability as has appeared in Challenge Cup match. Keith D (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Challenge Cup is not a fully professional competition. Appreciate the wording of RLN could be clearer, but it is meant to only apply to players who make cup appearances for a Super League team. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is the FA Cup, but back to the Challenge Cup. That is one of the many details that I am working upon to bring the existing RLN up to scratch.Fleets (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's accurate analysis, fails general and specific notability guidelines. Cavarrone 12:15, 31 October 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 00:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nastasya Filipovna[edit]

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

Apart from the first and second sentences (the latter unsourced), it's all plot from the novel. Prince Myshkin has a little more substance/analysis, but not much. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may or may not be a particularly good article, but the character has received a huge amount of scholarly attention, as might be expected of a major Dostoevsky character. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Until such time as somebody does actually add something substantial, very little would be lost by redirecting to the novel. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the novel for now at least. The article can always be recreated again if somebody has more substantial material to add to it (Dostoyevsky does attract a lot of scholar analysis and attention), but it may be better to redirect for the time being. Aoba47 (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my vote as more work/expansion has been done to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given recent expansion. Aoba47 (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article is a bit pointless in its current state, but I am planning to make some changes and additions over the next few days to make it more substantial. Harold the Sheep (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Harold the Sheep: Good idea, and good luck with your revisions and expansions of the article! Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major character in major literary work. Don't confuse poor content with low notability. Montanabw^(talk) 20:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements; sufficient RS to sustain a stand-alone article. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. It's a completely different article now. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:02, 29 October 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) 15:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XBIZ Award for Best Actress—Couples-Themed Release[edit]

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

Recently contrived niche award without significant reliable independent coverage. Little more than negligible generic text coupled with oversize performer images. Wikipedia is not an image gallery. Similar award pages have been/are being deleted without much controversy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior outcomes; Wikipedia is not a directory of nominees for insignificant awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable award, Fails GNG .–Davey2010^Talk 00:04, 31 October 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 Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs. This does not prevent later recreation (under this or another title) as soon as somebody puts in the work to make a decent subarticle out of it per WP:SS; it's uncontested that the topic is notable. Sandstein 11:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign policy of Margaret Thatcher[edit]

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

I personally would like to see this article expanded, rather than deleted, but so far it seems the prospects are unlikely. A lot of her foreign policy pertaining to areas outside the realms of the Soviet Union and Communism are omitted, and even I (as a personal admirer) can see that a lot of the text is likely a little biased in her favour. I tried reformatting the article layout a couple of months ago, but retrospectively I cannot bring myself to confidently believe that that's enough. This article probably should be redirected to Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs, similar to how Foreign policy of Tony Blair redirects to the relevant section at Tony Blair. Perhaps a merge of some of the contents could be possible. --Nevé –selbert 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As it stands, this article has a short paragraph and a long quote. The short paragraph is much less informative than the current contents of Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs and her long foreign policy speech belongs in Wikiquote or Wikisource. Nothing to save here. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid breaking incoming links, I naturally support a redirect to Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs instead of outright deletion. — JFG ^talk 12:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by another contributor, Premiership of Margaret Thatcher is also a good target for redirect. However it is organized chronologically without a dedicated "Foreign policy" section. — JFG ^talk 06:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is fairly obviously an article with potential for expansion. That doesn't mean I think that it's particularly good in its current state. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
xx changed my mind xx it will eventually be much longer. It's basically a stand-alone topic with a large RS literature. Rjensen (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I now feel that the article is not needed because we have a better locale to build upon, Premiership of Margaret Thatcher. Rjensen (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or redirect. With respect, Nevé, why bring this to AFD if your desired outcome is to redirect it? Sounds like this would be better discussed on the article's talk page. Nobody doubts that this is an appropriate subject with lots of potential of a encyclopaedia article, so why delete it? A Train^talk 16:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we want is an article on the foreign policy of the Thatcher administration. This frees up the article to cover many many topics that she was not deeply involved in. Currently there is no good place to cover them. Rjensen (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@A Train: If there was a Wikipedia:Articles for redirection route, I would have chosen that. However, the first thing that came to my mind was to follow what happened with the Iron Lady situation.--Nevé –selbert 20:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll admit that the article does need improvement, but articles about the foreign policies of major governments are a thing we accept and keep — Category:Foreign policy by government has 14 other sibling articles already. I'll acknowledge that for the most part they exist more for recent/current governments than they do for older ones, but some older ones that loom large in political history (Kennedy, Reagan, Mitterrand, B. Clinton) do also have them, and there's hardly any question to be had that Thatcher's in that league. (The new/old inconsistency isn't so much about older foreign policy being less notable in principle; it's just that because it's a topic that requires digging into old microfilms and books and such rather than simply throwing two sentences and a web URL into the article every time some new piece of news happens, people aren't as diligent about doing the work as they are for current leaders like Obama or Putin or Modi.) We should flag this for improvement, certainly — just for starters, quite a bit of the content at Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs could quite legitimately be copied and/or outright moved here to help expand this — but "foreign policy of a national government" is a perfectly reasonable and perhaps even expected topic for a spinoff article separate from the leader's main biography, so duplicating content that's already in her bio isn't a reason in and of itself to not have this. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see any good reason at all to move information from Margaret Thatcher#Foreign affairs to this article; the #Foreign affairs section is reasonably sized and should not be reduced. I would like this article to be expanded (absolutely), but nobody seems to want to volunteer. The last thing I want is for this article to remain stagnant. There should be information on her approach towards Latin America (Falklands) and Africa (Apartheid), and her attitudes in relation to European integration (single currency) and Irish issues (hunger strike), etc. From reading the article alone, I would think that her foreign policy was totally dominated by containing the threat of Communism.--Nevé –selbert 21:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Margaret_Thatcher#Foreign_affairs for now. The target section is getting long, and if someone develops the topic further it could be broken out into a separate article (this one). But as things stand right now, there's no need for two articles. The section in the target area covers this quite well. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, REdirect -- the present article is too brief to be useful, thought the bibliography might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 30 October 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 objections to speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gennady Golovkin vs. Kell Brook[edit]

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

I originally PROD'd this based on non-notable, unreferenced listing of results. When contested all that was added was the BoxRec entry which only shows that the even exists. The main issue of notability remains. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable championship fight with 500,000 PPV buys in the UK, main fight aired in several countries including on HBO in America. Copious amounts of coverage before and after the fight from mainstream media outlets: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Naue7 (talk) 20:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 14:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's no article here right now. There is potential for an article - perhaps a move to draft space would be in order until someone is ready to flesh it out. --Michig (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just commenting because I've grown tired of WP arguments and accusations. This article has no references except for a link to the fight results (which is the sum total of the article). It way well have had the viewership claimed but many sporting events are viewed by millions but that doesn't make them notable. As it stands I don't see any evidence that either WP:GNG or WP:NEVENT is met. Michig's suggestion to make it a user's draft page seems reasonable. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 23 October 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. Cavarrone 08:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Renai Caruso[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR. Yes she has had multiple roles but I would not say they are significant roles. LibStar (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks enough significant roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Main cast in a season of Satisfaction (Australian TV series) and major part (83 episodes, more than any other cast member?) in Out of the Blue (2008 TV series) satisfies WP:NACTORs call for "significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows".

Some sources for GNG

Davis, Guy (18 December 2009), "WORKING GIRLS", Geelong Advertiser

McWhirter, Erin (9 December 2009), "Role delivers Satisfaction", The Courier-Mail

Bieske, Sarah (10 October 2009), "Out to satisfy", Geelong Advertiser

Additional source

"More than satisfying", Daily Telegraph, 23 January 2010

She is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 06:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

not a genuine !vote as per WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:35, 27 October 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. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Gadget Band[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Only source proves existence and minor change within the work. PROD contested by creator. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages for similar resons:[reply]

Keep all. Bundling is awkward here, because there's no reason to expect equal treatment in reliable sources for all 1930s cartoons. Accordingly, I'm going to address only the primary article nominated. Hobo Gadget Band is actually well-documented in reliable sources. Here is a paragraph in a Rutgers University Press book describing the influence of Disney's cartoons on Hobo. This paper in the journal American Music cites Hobo as an example of the depiction of rural poverty in cartoons. Other sources, although by themselves more trivial mentions, provide us with additional details; a 1948 issue of Motion Picture Herald informs us of the existence of a 1948 re-issue of the cartoon, for example. I haven't dug into the 1930s sources to look for contemporary reviews, although I suspect they also exist--this was released by Vitaphone and would have been primarily seen in theaters along with a feature film, and was likely reviewed accordingly. As with much of our coverage of film before around the 1940s, these articles need a lot of work. Deletion is not the solution. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoons are all Merrie Melodies from the same era, the articles were created by the same user at about the same time, and they're about equal in terms of current content. I'm not opposed to unbundling if they have unequal claims to notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Gone Modern has coverage that is closer to trivial, but that I'd consider to still meet the inclusion bar. This book explicitly identified it as Chuck Jones's second cartoon and discusses the influences on its development. Several sources, including this and this, cite it as part of the "house of tomorrow" trope in science fiction. I believe that it received at least a capsule review in the 1939 Motion Picture Herald, although I don't have confirmation of that immediately at hand. I also believe there's some coverage of it in Leonard Maltin's Of Mice and Magic, although I likewise don't have a copy of that text nearby.

I'd really rather not try to wade through the false positives for Bars and Stripes Forever and Snowman's Land at the moment. I'm fairly certain that all the Vitaphone-era theatrical-release Merrie Melodies received reviews in film periodicals, such as Motion Picture Herald. The late 1930s issues of those periodicals are not all easily searchable online at the current time (and I'm having some problems with the searchable OCR versions of some of the ones that are available), which makes checking for the appropriate contemporary references challenging. The worst that could happen with these two titles would be a redirect to Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies filmography (1929–39). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Based on Northamerica1000's searches, there are available sources for at least some of these films. The problem is that the current version of the articles fails to mention any of them. They will need extensive rewriting and expansion if kept. Dimadick (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying to delete these when there are tons of LT and MM articles without any sources at all, and all they get is a stub. We should mark these as stubs, not delete them. SquishyZ1 (talk) 02:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Other stuff. If you want to link the articles you're talking about, I'll be happy to consider AfDing them pending the outcome here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also deleted the plot from Hobo Gadget Band because somehow, it was copied from iMDB. So I had to summarize it in a sentence. Snowman's Land is a lost cartoon and by finding out more about it, we can get more info on the cartoon itself. Bars and Stripes Forever already has two video sources that I put to explain where I came to conclusion about the opening title card. SquishyZ1 (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, there's no point in deleting these, especially if they need more work. We can always expand on them during the time, no need to delete. 209.66.173.24 (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Squeamish Ossifrage's research. Seem to all meet the WP:GNG. I agree that the bundling is a bit awkward. Might have been worth nominating one as a test case. A Train^talk 17:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remove the notices for the deletion policy since these haven't been deleted in months? SquishyZ1 (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The answer is no, as you are the article creator of at least one of these articles and therefore an interested party. But it doesn't matter as I am closing this as keep. Safiel (talk) 02:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charming Liars[edit]

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

Following a google search, there is no apparent indication of notability. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only locate primary sources for the band (official website, Facebook, twitter, etc). I think the ref title "New music discovery" from 2016 is evidence enough that the band is not notable enough for its own page. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete this is the only RS I could find - David Gerard (talk) 09:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep I added more information and sources about the bands formation and recent activities. I don't know if it meets noteworthy criteria, but the artist does have a growing audience. Musicnerd77 (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment not convinced by new sources, still doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Spirit of Eagle:, @MBisanz:, this discussion has now been relisted twice, with no reason expressed for doing so, and few additional reliable sources. Care to comment on this? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's had low traffic. At this rate, it will most likely be deleted, but usually I look for more discussion around the sources Musicnerd provided. MBisanz ^talk 00:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I relisted for pretty much the same reason. Additionally, Musicnerd77 added several sources that, while not particularly strong, needed to be addressed before a clear-cut close could be made. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I think this is WP:TOOSOON. The additional sources in the various South American Rolling Stone editions, do show a claim of significance. But they are either interviews in context of a tour/album release or a very brief piece about a music video. Usually for a notable band, there is solid secondary coverage. That is missing here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:01, 2 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. Renames should be discussed on the talkpage ..not at an AFD so am closing as Keep, I have no objections if anyone wants to move the article however renaming isn't something that's dealt with here and should be discussed on the tp first (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladeshi Ambassador to Bhutan[edit]

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

as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi Ambassador to Germany. Just a directory and better handled as categories LibStar (talk) 07:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bhutan-related deletion discussions. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move to List of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Bhutan. WP:NOTDIR does not apply here for we have articles like List of ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Spain. I agree that this requires cleanup, but not deletion for WP:NOTDIR states " (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries)", I presume ambassadors fit in as well. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of ambassadors of Bangladesh to Bhutan. Bhutan has only two embassy one of India and another of Bangladesh. Which makes the relation unique and notable.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Metaphysics (Aristotle). Refering to Category:Lists of ambassadors a productive view would see the List of Ambassador of a sending government to a hosting government as a stub of an Ambassador of a sending government to a hosting government. 08:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Regesta (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sivasakthi Amman Temple, Thiruninravur[edit]

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

Welp, this is a tricky one, and I've spent some time researching it, but I can't verify this place's existence. Firstly, the title of the page is Sivasakthi Amman Temple, but the location (and the history section, before I removed it for being complete gibberish and making utterly no sense) section then says "Sarvamadha Sathya Peedam is situated...". Given that two different names have been supplied, then it should be pretty simple to verify this temple's existence, but I simply cannot find anything, under any name at all. Complicating matters is that there are numerous high quality images on the page, and so perhaps there is a case of mistaken identity, or something, as I don't think this is a hoax, but even after going through lists of temples in Tamil Nadu (and not just from our own incomplete Wikipedia list) and searching for images and videos of the temple, I can't find anything. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failed to find even passing mentions for this temple in any reliable source. Anup [Talk] 10:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the domestic language Tamil, such temples are known as Kovil or Koil. There are sources which mention the existence of the temple[11], but someone has to mix up the name properly to find out, because in some sources, the name of the temple is "Sivasakthi Temple" (leaving out the Amman). Here's the Google Maps image. Here's the yellow pages directory entry. Lourdes 15:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lourdes: Temples are called in Tamil, Kovil/Koil? Or only those temples what are dedicated to lord Shiva? Anyway, I tried for "Sri Shivashakti temple", and found this. It is another temple built in 1930, located in Penang, Malayasia. Perhaps that is the one we should have an article about. If you know Tamil language, please try WP:INDAFD search engine, here. Anup [Talk] 22:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Anup. Perhaps you did not see the sources that I have already found. The temple exists. Rest, I have no views on whether to keep or delete the article. Lourdes 02:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I opened and read those unreliable sources. I was confused whether "temple" is called 'Kovil/Koil' in Tamil, or as you said, "such temples" (temple dedicated to Shiva) are called, 'Kovil/Koil'. If you were a native speaker of Tamil, you could tell me better and I would give your words more weight than above sources. I noticed variation in names and searched for alternative name (leaving out 'amman') in a Tamil daily, it popped up another temple.

For some reason, you answered an unasked question. I didn't question existence. Anup [Talk] 08:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thanks. Lourdes 13:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : The contents are true, may be the article did not explicitly meant to deviate from Name in Tamil and English, the information are slightly modified accordinglySivasakthiAalayam (talk) 09:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SivasakthiAalayam:Please provide notable sources to justify your stand.WIKIPEDIA is heavily dependent on them!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The article has too many problems.Even if we accept(take for granted) that the temple exists, where is the guarantee of notability of this particular temple.In a country like India,there are numerous religious shrines, places of worship etc., it is purely fantastical that each and every temple shall have an article!I think the onus shall be on the creator/(those who opine to keep) to prove their locus standi! Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 14:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 12:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masahiko Tanaka[edit]

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

Article is completely unsourced, with only ANN and IMDB as external links. No news coverage, nor are there any strong, reliable sources. I do not see the subject as notable in any possible way. Sk8erPrince (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ANN roles review: 1) Fumihiko Makabe in Fafner - main character's father [12][13] 2) Gauron in Full Metal Panic - primary antagonist in the first season 3) Ryo Mashiba in Hajime no Ippo - notable character in series although anime mentions him as episodic. 3) Kyoichi Sudou in Initial D - primary antagonist in the second season and the feature film 4) Ryunosuke Umemiya in Shaman King - supporting but recurring 5) Rasputin in Drifters - main cast [14]

Mostly supporting roles but recurring and regular, especially in notable titles: Fafner, Full Metal Panic, Initial D, and Shaman King. No writeup on JA wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you classify any of them as MAIN supporting? --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't recognize any of the roles here so I cant really help on this one but will say that there are no sources on both wikis to indicate enough notability. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Angus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per User:AngusWOOF, passes WP:NACTOR due to him having voiced multiple major characters. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 07:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're just supporting characters, though... and none of them really stand out; there isn't a single role that the subject is clearly known for. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 19:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to keep per AngusWOOF's analysis, multiple significant roles (noting that significant does not necessarily means main), I would also add Rasputin in Drifters [15], enough to pass NACTOR criteria. Cavarrone 17:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grigori Rasputin is NOT part of the main cast. He's a supporting character. Some of the subject's roles are antagonists/main supporting roles, but NONE of them stand out in particular. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the subject's roles are antagonists/main supporting roles = SIGNIFICANT roles. Supporting characters are often significant, both in terms of importance and playing time, and NACTOR's wording requires roles to be significant, not just main. Such a wording was discussed various times, and it was every time confirmed as to include personalities who have established careers as supporting/character actors, besides main roles. If you complain about such a wording, the proper place to discuss it is the SNG's talk page, not here. Tanaka may not have had any main role, but was in the regular or semi-regular cast in significant roles in at least a dozen (probably more) of very important anime series. Article is currently just a stub, but the subject is apparently notable in his field. Cavarrone 07:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You call that notable? Really now? First, I'll debunk your claim about the subject having voiced in at least 12 titles as the main supporting character. Angus was able to count 3-4 so far. Also view these AFDs:

AFD 1

AFD 2

AFD 3

As you can see, subjects could have 2-3 main roles and some (main) supporting roles, but if they have not received significant news coverage, their article is still grounds for deletion. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unimpressive exemples and you have debunked nothing, arguing that Rie Nakagawa (I have no idea who he is) is not notable has nothing to do with Masahiko Tanaka being notable or not, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Tanaka is the only one we are actually discussing and he actually passes NACTOR requirements by a reasonable margin. If you disagree with that, go to WP:NACTOR talk page, ask to change the word "significant" with "main", get consensus, and then you'll have my vote for deletion. Otherwise you are supposed to respect others' votes as long as they are based on actual notability criteria, even if you disagree with them. Cavarrone 17:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fancruft that has somehow survived 3 previous AFDs. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTPLOT as a huge, plot-only article. The place for this sort of thing is Wikia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Northamerica1000. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article has been around for a very long time, and contains accurate information about the characters from the Lilo and Stitch series. All fan-made/false info is removed as quickly as possible. I see no reason for this character list article to be deleted. Gogo Dodo and I, and quite a few other helpful users, have been doing our best to keep fan-opinion out of this article, clean it up regularly, and to make sure it contains only accurate information on the series. This character page is indeed accurate to the show, unlike the similar but terribly unprofessional and inaccurate "Lilo and Stitch Wikia" fan-site's Experiment page (where fans insert completely false, inaccurate, downright made-up information about these characters). I've been helping out on this Wikipedia page for more than a year now, striving to keep it an accurate character list for the Lilo and Stitch cartoon series, and I honestly don't see how this article is worse than any other cartoon series' "character list" article on Wikipedia. If you're going to delete this page, you might as well delete every character list article for every cartoon/TV/movie series that has an article on Wikipedia. Just an example: have you seen all the fan rubbish on the iCarly character article? Look at any "character list" on Wikipedia -- they're all the same; but at least this one is definitely well-organized, cared-for, and accurate. If this article is going to be picked on for the reasons stated above (e.g. WP:NOTPLOT), Wikipedia might as well not allow character list articles at all. This list is accurate, and it is a good resource for fans of this well-known series. Keep it. (Please also see Gogo Dodo's previous comments regarding this list on the previous deletion nominations; I agree 100%.) Plasma Phantom (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy-paste the Wikipedia article over the one on the Wikia site, then. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to KATMAKROFAN: I've already tried that a year ago. The admin of the "Lilo and Stitch Wikia" is a stubborn tyrant who adamantly refuses to let anyone input accurate information on the Experiments on his Wikia. He makes up downright false information (fan-fiction, and even fan-art, on Experiments that have not even been revealed in the series yet), and has been questioned many times about this by others who see the errors and wish to improve the Wikia. To make matters worse, he blocks anyone who tries to improve the Wikia with accurate facts, and prefers to keep the Wikia infested with fan-fiction. As a matter of fact, his Wikia is confusing a lot of fans, who, from my observation, are coming over here and inputting the same false info (word for word) from the Lilo and Stitch Wikia into Wikipedia's Experiment list page (which is removed as soon as possible by me, Gogo Dodo, and others, who are trying to keep the fan garbage out of the page). The Lilo and Stitch Wikia is a joke, and cannot be fixed, especially seeing as the admin is so cruel and stubborn. Why don't you try removing all the fan junk from that Wikia yourself, replace it with the info here, and try reasoning with the admin -- and you'll get ignored and blocked by him just like I did a year ago. It would be a shame for this list to be deleted, because then the only source would be that trash Lilo and Stitch fanon Wikia. Plasma Phantom (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with KATMAKROFAN on this. This article seems more appropriate for a Wikia site than wikipeida. I disagree with @Plasma Phantom:'s point that "Wikipedia might as well not allow character list articles at all." as there are plenty of character lists on Wikipedia. Two examples that I can think of right away are Characters of Carnivàle and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which are both featured articles. The primary difference between those two articles and this one is that this article does not cite any reliable, secondary sources. A character list is definitely acceptable on here as long as it passes notability standards. I apologize for your negative experience on a fan wikia, as I can tell a lot of work has been put into this list and it is well-written, but it is still inappropriate for Wikipedia I'm afraid to say. Aoba47 (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Aoba47: Well, it's a shame that this cartoon (Lilo and Stitch: The Series) is rather obscure, so these ever so crucial "cite notes" from "secondary sources" on the Experiment characters are difficult to find thanks to Disney not making this needed information available to cite. If you are familiar with the series, you know the information listed here is true and reliable. But if Wikipedia articles on character lists are required to have little cite notes on everything, then it's a very sad thing that this article is being attacked over and over (for the fourth time). It was decided three times already, after being nominated for deletion by others throughout the years, that this article should be kept. I guess some nit-pickers here just can't seem to accept the "keep" consensus of the past three nominations. I read somewhere in the Wikipedia deletion guides that an article shouldn't be nominated repeatedly after the consensus after at least 3 nominations was "Keep". But if the "cites" and "sources" are absolutely necessary, I wash my hands of this and shall move on, no matter how the consensus of this excessive fourth deletion nomination turns out. I still insist on keeping it for the reasons Gogo Dodo and WPA have mentioned. Plasma Phantom (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plasma Phantom: I was merely explaining my rationale behind my delete vote, and providing feedback on your comments about the status of character lists on Wikipedia. I apologize if I offended you in any way, shape, or form, as that was not my intention. I was merely attempting to help with the discussion here. I would suggest reading Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) as that breaks down Wikipedia's general notability guidelines in a very easy-to-follow manner, especially with how notability is demonstrated through "significant coverage in independent secondary sources about the fictional element". Again, I am just trying to help with the discussion here, and I do not mean to offend you. You can choose to ignore this message, but I thought I might as well expand on the point of view. Aoba47 (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article covers a major aspect of the Lilo & Stitch franchise that has been around since the production of the original film. They play a significant role to the events of the franchise's films, television series, and other related works, the context of the main theme of ohana, and how they have affected the franchise's main characters (e.g. Jumba being their creator and getting imprisoned because of that fact, Lilo's life changing drastically after meeting the experiments, Stitch being an experiment himself). To delete this article would remove much information pertaining to the franchise's works on their articles here; such a deletion would be akin to say, the deletion of the Lists of Pokémon. Only having the experiments mentioned on the List of Lilo & Stitch characters would not be sufficient. To quote the aforementioned Gogo Dodo (who has been absent from Wikipedia for a month now) from their comments on prior nominations:

I'll more or less repeat what I said two years ago: The television series episode plots center specifically around this list of experiments, so removing the page will remove a large chunk of information pertaining to the show. The list is different than the List of Lilo & Stitch: The Series episodes as the episode list contains airdates and shorter experiment appearance lists. As for the claim of fancruft, I have strived long and hard to specifically keep it free of speculative list cruft (though I admit that I'm getting rather tired of doing so). Unfortunately, Disney made maintaining the list extremely difficult when they decided it would be fun to list the name of every experiment at the end of the last movie (Leroy & Stitch). So the names are available, but unless Disney produces more cartoons, the descriptions will have to remain blank as no information is available. All the information is from the shows or movies and speculative descriptions are removed almost immediately. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As for the aforementioned possible reason for deletion (WP:NOTPLOT), I have been making a concerted effort to find reliable sources about the conceptualization and development of the experiments throughout the franchise, especially with regards to Lilo & Stitch: The Series where they are of major focus. Admittedly, such information have been hard to find and rather scarce. Prior to this article's current nomination on October 1, I asked on the talk page about one possible source I found and whether or not it is acceptable, but I have not received any response so far; this recent nomination not helping matters. Still, I am doing my effort (alongside Plasma Phantom and the currently-absent Gogo Dodo, among other helpful users) to improve the page wherever possible while keeping it free of false and made-up information from more overly-passionate fans. I intend to continue searching for accurate information about them regardless of what happens to the page, since finding any reliable sources about their production would still be beneficial to understanding both the franchise and the characters. –WPA (talk) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established, so an article is not necessary. TTN (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party reliable sources, which makes it an automatic failure of WP:V, let alone WP:N. If even the "keep" side admits that reliable sources are lacking, then that should be an indication that such content is better suited to a fan wiki. Sandstein 10:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced fancruft that does not establish notability. While some of the individual Experiments listed here may have independent notability, they are already sufficiently covered in the List of Lilo & Stitch characters article. The rest of this massive list is just trivial information that has no third party sources backing up why they, as a group, are notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- excessive in-universe detail, aka fancruft. No secondary sources have been presented at this AfD to compel keeping this article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as absolutely nothing significant or substantial apart from its own story connections, and therefore because we are not Wikia, it's not improvable or acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:04, 2 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. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus is evident in this discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Senecal[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO and violates WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject recently achieved media coverage for making death threats against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Facebook; however, the threats were far from credible, and most of the buzz came from the fact that he is the ex-butler of Donald Trump. While many sources exist, they all seem to concern this one event, and it does not seem that the subject has attained lasting significance. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 22:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to or perhaps merge with Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, as the sources would justify a spot in that article. MB298 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as much as I'd love for his bad behavior get more publicity, we almost always delete such articles. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete This article is an attack article. It also has one source, which is inherently not in compliance with GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: how exactly is this an "attack article"? Is there anything non-factual? Your argument that it only has one source is fatuous given how much media coverage there was of this man just a couple of months ago. A Train^talk 15:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing for actual independent notability, and there will imaginably be none of course based from what's insinuated as a career. SwisterTwister talk 06:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as WP:NOTNEWS and not WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTINHERITED. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Before all of the furore about this guy's Facebook page popped up in May, there was a lengthy New York Times profile of the man that ran in March. So between the Times profile and the later coverage (in Vanity Fair, the Washington Post just to name two), I would suggest that there was substantial coverage of Senecal in unquestionably reliable sources, thus meeting the bar of WP:BIO. A Train^talk 15:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Train: With all due respect, what exists does not seem to indicate notability. To quote WP:BASIC (particularly the section I've italicized): "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event...". In other words, even topics which technically satisfy WP:BIO may not be notable if, like Mr. Senecal, they only receive coverage for one event. Looking at what we have: the Times profile was written mostly due to Senecal's association with Donald Trump; even the title ("How Donald Trump Lives") indicates that. As such, it doesn't give too much weight to independent notability for Senecal. The rest mostly deals with the short-term interest generated by his social media antics, and there seems to be no lasting significance. Per WP:GNG, the existence of coverage in reliable sources (even significant coverage) only creates an assumption that a topic is notable; one must investigate further to determine whether that coverage indicates notability. In this case, while there is rather significant coverage, that coverage does not add up to long-term notability. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonel Wilhelm Klink:, that is a thoughtful argument. I still find myself disagreeing though. I can see where you are coming from with the idea that Senecal has inherited his notability from Trump, and if the only good source here was the NYT profile, I would agree. But the subsequent social media kerfuffle made him newsworthy own his own. I think that being at the center of a controversial episode in an election that will be pored over for decades to come will supply quite a lot of long-term interest in Senecal. A Train^talk 19:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Train: I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree; I see the point you're making, but I'm still not convinced that notability is attained. Hopefully this AfD will receive some fresh insight; it would be interesting to hear what others think. At any rate, thanks for the reply, and happy editing. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 20:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per User:A Train, there seems to be sufficient coverage for WP:BIO. ReusGang (talk) 10:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. sufficient coverage for WP:BIO and WP:GNG. good source in the article and plenty more via a simple google search.BabbaQ (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 23:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Train and BabbaQ. This is a living person who has granted several interviews with reliable sources, and pushed himself into the limelight. It is not just one incident. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 25 October 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) Adam9007 (talk) 17:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

University Wensam College[edit]

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

Non-notable university, Fails WP:GNG. CSD was declined. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 18:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think PROD may have been better. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as not only is there a claim of significance but it's a notable school (it has a website here), so as with all of the colleges and universities that are notable including if it has a "oldest" claim), this is not deletion material. SwisterTwister talk 19:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.[16][17] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Terrible "article", of course, but notable subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article subject *might* be a secondary school (and thus falling within typical WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES) but there are zero sources here. This might be an unaccredited diploma mill for all we know. A Train^talk 16:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm assuming you haven't spotted the refs provided by Clarityfiend and SwisterTwister above? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be pedantic, @Necrothesp:, but none of those are reliable sources. A Train^talk 19:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now government sources aren't reliable? Interesting opinion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a newspaper or journal or other secondary source. A Train^talk 10:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In no way does that make it a non-reliable source as you claim. Government sources are always taken as reliable sources unless they are clear propaganda. In fact, it is a secondary source as this is not a government-run school. Its existence is confirmed by external sources. It should therefore be kept under the consensus outlined at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Consensus is that simply stating "keep per schooloutcomes" isn't enough and sources should be provided - Sources have been provided and all 3 confirm the school exists (realistically I like many others would prefer something much more substantial however that's impossible when it comes to schools - the sources all confirm the schools existence which is enough), no valid reason for deletion. –Davey2010^Talk 00:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources confirm it exists. It's a notable institution per our longstanding consensus. In desperate need of clean up, however. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:15, 31 October 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. Cavarrone 08:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Plucknett[edit]

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

Non notable actress, Has been unsourced since 2010, Found 2 sources, One isn't a reliable source and the other is BBC source[18] however it's only a mention (I don't have an issue with adding these sorts of mentions to articles however in this case the article cannot rely on a one-line mention), Fails NACTOR & GNG –Davey2010^Talk 02:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands, as unsourced BLP - I'm finding a lot of passing mentions of her, particularly on a books search, and I think she's likely a plausible article topic readers would in fact look up ... but I haven't found a thing about her that would let us write a BLP. I would be most pleased to be able to change my mind on this one - e.g. I can't read the Welsh sources, but if they're meatier they'd be great. cy:Victoria_Plucknett is unfortunately sourced only to IMDB - David Gerard (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A fair few hits in google books yup David, I will try to improve this tomorrow. She's a notable face in Wales, I recognize her!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr. Blofeld, Ofcourse if you are able to turn the article around I'd be more than happy to withdraw, I would withdraw now however I don't want to withdraw and then find out you can't find anything (It's happened before unfortunately), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be a case of Martin Miller syndrome, where few sources really have many details, but she is credited and becomes notable on weight of the works she was in. Notable actress, but difficult to write. We shouldn't have any unsourced BLPs though in 2016.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. She should be notable and I'd like us to have an article, but we do in fact need sources other than just a list of what she's been in. Surely somewhere in the last 20 years has run a profile ... - David Gerard (talk) 00:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I remember her from DoDS, must be sources somewhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find them, you'll be doing better than me ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remember watching the goddamn show - she had a major role. Am surprised there isn't something more...found ~~one~~ two measly refs so far. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I genuinely do appreciate your help in trying to find and adding sources however the sources are extremely poor, As this actress has been in this industry for around 31-41 years there should be better sources than this (Ofcourse there may well be sources offline however that's simply a wild guess), Anyway she still fails GNG, I don't mean this in a funny way nor am I trying to start an arguement but being on a show doesn't automatically make someone notable either, Thanks for your efforts tho they are appreciated. –Davey2010^Talk 23:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think she's actually plausibly notable, and people know her name and might reasonably look her up ... but we have no sources suitable for a BLP - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regretably, there does not appear to be any scholarly sources (biography, interview primarily about her, etc) readily available. It is presumable that because the actress has been on multiple programs there's a record of an interview, but because we're online we don't have as good access to offline sources. No objections to recreating if/when sources that can verify the actress' notability, but until then with almost 10 years of effort on this article, I'm starting to doubt the existance of the sources. Hasteur (talk) 13:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands Unfortunately I am unable to find any sources beyond simple listings. There is literally nothing which actually discusses the subject itself and I have to regrettably put a delete here per WHYN. Nothing much in any books either nor in any of the newspaper archives I have access to. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a number of sources on HighBeam that confirm her roles in 2 soaps. I added to the article. I'll try to add more later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We have sources to confirm the fact of her being in the soaps. What we need is RSes that say anything actually about her ... - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wouldn't she pass NACTOR if she has enough significant roles? Or are only the soaps being counted towards NACTOR? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Likely, but we still have literally have no information actually about her except that she's from Wales, and not even that's sourced to an RS. we have zero sources about the putative subject of the article - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does anyone know anybody who speaks Welsh? Some of the articles seem to be in that language. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        I watched her in the Duchess of Duke St when I was a kid - she was one of the main characters in it. I might have an idea where I can find an offline source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is notable, but needs some work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. main character in an important series. Since that shows her notable , there's no need for additional bio to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She may of been on an important show but regardless the sourcing is unfortunately still very poor and as I said above this BLP's been acting for 30 odd years (and has been in for the past 17 years) yet there's nothing source-wise (I honestly mean that in a nice way), If sources can be found that are of the actual BLP then I'd happily withdrawn but unfortunately there's no notability source-wise. –Davey2010^Talk 23:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ibezim-Ohaeri[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG, can't find any reliable source discussing this subject in detail Jamie Tubers (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable non-profit foundation developer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important lawyer and advocate for human rights in Nigeria. Sources include several paragraphs and few paragraphs and in-depth and an interview here and she is quoted here. She is a frequent writer of op-ed columns such as this one and this one as well as a speaker. Meets the general notability guideline.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Future commenters, please review Tomwsulcer's sources Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lawyer as the user noted above. Article needs work, but there is enough coverage here. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as the user who listed sources says themselves, they're merely mentions and paragraphs along with interviews and a few named connections, none of that amounts to substance and, considering this current article is entirely an advertisement, there's nothing suggesting otherwise. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are not reliable sources. Columns written by the subject are not an indication of notability. We require reliable third party coverage about the subject. I looked at the sources above and I'm not really impressed. 1 is a passing mention/quote, 2 (same website as 1, but different article) is actually the same quote, copied word to word as the previous source (which makes me seriously doubt the reliability of the sources). 3, essentially a repost of her facebook post where she alleged that someone plagiarised her work. 4 redirects to an interview on a citizen journalism site, and 5 seems to be a quote. More importantly, almost every source talks about the subject in context of the organisation which potentially makes it a BLP1E. I guess this is WP:TOOSOON and in any case there is not enough coverage about the subject for WP:WHYN. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This source is not a passing mention/quote but in-depth treatment. She is quoted at length here and she is leading a protest here. She is known as a speaker on legal issues. Clearly a notable mover-shaker in the world of Nigerian politics and meets the WP:GNG.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Being quoted at length actually shows there was nothing better to publish, or chosen to publish but her own words, and then to make matters serious, WP:GNG means nothing if the article still exists for advertising, so in this case WP:ADVERTISING and WP:NOT apply, and are taken seriously when articles simply are supported by triviality such as mere quotes and other mentions. SwisterTwister talk 22:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SwisterTwister —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:03, 27 October 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. Deleted by User:MBisanz. Cavarrone 08:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story (soundtrack)[edit]

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

Just another soundrack album. I'ed propose merging with the article on the film, bu this does not seem to exist TheLongTone (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:This is the soundtrack album of the film M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story which was created due to the reason mentioned by Kailash29792 (talk) below, why would it have to be deleted when many films have soundtracks? Rajan51 (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Many films have sountrack albums; why is this one notable.TheLongTone (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Rajan, your comment is not justifiable enough, and borders on WP:OTHERCRAP. If I were you, I'd say something like, The main article became too large, so we created a separate article for the soundtrack. This way, we could also upload the album cover to the soundtrack infobox as album covers are discouraged in film articles per WP:NFCC. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, well, that aside, since the nomination statement is in error and the main article does exist, then a merge to M.S._Dhoni:_The_Untold_Story#Music would be a simple enough solution. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my bad. Sloppy searching. The film article is, howeve, pretty baggy already.TheLongTone (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shawn in Montreal, merging this is not a good solution as the film's article is bulky and cannot afford to hold such long track lists.Rajan51 (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, importing the soundtrack article as is might push the main article to the point where it becomes unwieldy. I've no strong views on the matter either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm convinced that merging it to the main article would make the navigation pretty much difficult. However, I also noticed that majority of sources in the article are either primary or unreliable ones, and I wonder if there are any decent replacement for them. If not, it could be merged with parent article after removing contents based on unreliable/primary sources. Find replacements and ping me, I'll !vote keep. Anup [Talk] 20:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story. The length of the article does not justify WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. The page as it stands contains too much intricate detail and is possibly a WP:PROMO article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Given the fact that the main article itself has a lot of sections within itself and has a long summary, I think that this article for the soundtracks deserves a separate page like it is already having. Also we have to consider the fact that the film was released officially in four different languages and the names of the songs are also different and some of the singers are different too. So if we merge this into the main article, then the main article would be unnecessarily long. So this article deserves to be kept separated. Arka 92 13:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't look like the album is notable on its own. The second paragraph can be placed in the film's article, with the rest deleted. There's no need to repeat the tracklisting. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 06:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant with film's article already existing. Our articles these days on "popular culture" tend to disregard WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and go on to write every verifiable trivia. This only deteriorates our overall quality. Some editors here have been creating soundtrack articles just so they can use a different non-free image as MOS:FILM#Soundtrack doesn't allow it anymore. That's ridiculous and stupid and to top that they even argue on same lines. I wonder if admins could bother to look into this matter. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant, unnecessary split. --Cavarrone 10:14, 31 October 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 The Conglomerate (American group). Apparently there isn't too much to merge, as the Lord Have Mercy article is mainly unsourced. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Have Mercy (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, fails WP:MUSICBIO. It appears that he is known for his association with a notable music ensemble, and not much else. The subject has failed to become subject to non-trivial coverage from third-party reliable sources; there is no evidence that he notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. — ξ ^xplicit 04:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to The_Conglomerate_(American_group), of which he was part. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayamma[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

Article meets all criteria of WP:ENT as explained below:

1. Criteria: Entertainer has had a significant role in multiple stage performances

Mayamma is the Star performer in the numerous shows listed below:

   Date,  Event,  Number of People in Audience
   - Sept 9th 2014,QAMI Performance + Introduction of Mayamma,250
   - Nov 15th 2014,Social Tuesdays Fundraiser at Humming Tree,450
   - Nov 22nd 2014,Diversity Carnival at Rococo Art Gallery,300
   - Dec 28th 2014,The BeeHive at Humming Tree,100
   - Feb 10th 2015,QAMI First Year Anniversary at Humming Tree,500
   - Feb 28th 2015,"BQFF, Alliance Franicaise ",600
   - Apr 25th 2015,QCI Performance at Paradigm Shift,75
   - Apr 30th 2015,Burlesque Night AT Humming Tree,500
   - July 26th 2015,Open Sky Slam at Humming Tree,300
   - Oct 3rd 2015,MIST Performance,75
   - Sept 26th 2015,QAMI in Hyderabad,150
   - "Dec 8-13, 2015","The Wedding Party, Rangashankara",2560
   - Feb 14th 2016,Burlesque Night,500
   - Feb 9th 2016,QAMI in Drinks on MG (Bangalore),100
   - August 7th 2016,"Easy Tiger, Kormangala",75
   - Oct 1st 2016, Pride Launch at Max Mueller Bhavan,250

2. Criteria: Has a significant cult following

Mayamma has

   - 2824 Facebook followers ^[1]
   - 1417 Instagram followers ^[2]
     as of 4th Oct 2016, which should count as a significant cult following given the context. What "significant" means is debatable, especially given a counter-culture art form that contradicts conservative mainstream culture of the country.

3. Criteria: Has made unique and innovative contributions to the field of entertainment

   Mayamma has met this criteria by raising awareness for gender issues, feminism, self love and individualism through the art form of drag and via the medium of a graceful, Malayali drag queen.

I believe that this article should remain, and that Mayamma is adequately acknowledged as a public personality with adequate internet presence and evidence of the same (citations on the article are numerous).
Drag as an art form receives censorship due to cultural constraints, and publicity and notability of counter-mainstream culture entertainers cannot be measured on the same scale as mainstream entertainment.

Comment by Article creator: shortindiangirl (Talk) 12:45, 4 October 2016 (UTC)Shortindiangirl (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello shortindiangirl , the reasons given by you are not valid reasons for keeping an article. What has Facebook followers got to do with notability?? You said Mayamma has 2824 followers on Facebook?? I have 6,692 followers on Facebook. So what is the point?? And by the way, in my line of work, I have addressed bigger crowds than that + have been on several TV channels and print media myself. But that does not make me notable. I strongly recommend that you read WP:GNG, WP:BIO and other related policy pages. Happy editing. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 15:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ (struck double !vote. Anup [Talk] 17:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)) Objection and response to comment above.[reply]

Yes, I have already read WP:GNG and WP:NP. I have also read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Subjective_importance#Factors_that_do_not_automatically_render_notability And I have specifically followed WP:ENTERTAINER. The criteria is stated as follows:

Entertainers Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

Thus Notability is defined within three major parameters - roles in multiple stage performances, has a significant "cult" following and contribution.

With regards to significant roles in stage performances, a list of performances has been provided.

With regards to a cult following, the stage character without a presence off-stage has a social media following (if there is another way to provide proof of a significant cult following for a digital millennial generation, please provide a guideline)

With regard to innovative contribution, a description is provided.

The reasons provided are valid, as they directly address and conform to the criteria as provided. With regard to notability at large, there is verifiable, objective evidence from independent sources regarding the subject's receipt of attention, not all of which are cited within the article, but I have listed below. Note that these sources also meet the criteria for independent and verifiable sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Lots_of_sources

'Buzzfeed' Articles by Iman Sheikh

 https://www.buzzfeed.com/imaansheikh/mayamma
 https://www.buzzfeed.com/imaansheikh/rainbow-revolution

'The News Minute' article by Keerti Prakasam

 http://www.thenewsminute.com/lives/755

Article in premier Indian newspaper 'The Hindu' by Neeraja Murthy

  http://www.thehindu.com/features/friday-review/theatre/an-evening-with-mayamma-and-more-was-a-show-with-spirit-and-spunk/article7698405.ece

Feature in 'Fifty Shades of Gay' (Campaign for equal rights for all Indians)

  http://fiftyshadesofgay.co.in/meet-indias-first-drag-queen-from-kerala-mayamma/

Article on 'Linked In' by Shubham Mehrothra, Editor in Chief & Filmmaker

  https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/meet-indias-first-drag-queen-sultry-fabulous-mayamma-mehrotra

A photo essay in 'Behance' (A e-exhibit space for creative work) by Sumalika VJ

  https://www.behance.net/gallery/37647015/-Shoot-for-Maya-the-Drag-Queen-

'Storypick' article by Disha Seth

  http://www.storypick.com/break-for-freedom/

'Bangalore Mirror' column by Vidya Iyengar

  http://www.bangaloremirror.com/columns/sunday-read/A-lesson-in-gender-thats-not-a-drag/articleshow/46413718.cms

Ajio Online Store feature story

  https://www.ajio.com/c/indieviduality

Lastly, there is more that can be written about the subject directly from the independent and verifiable sources and notable events that the subject has been part of. In other words, there is scope for the article to be built further.

Comment by Article creator: shortindiangirl (Talk) 10:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Shortindiangirl (talk) 10:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Shortindiangirl: I've stricken-through your double !vote. Every person is allowed to !vote only once. You can however add as many comments you want. Also note that the word vote doesn't mean in here head-counting rather argument based on policy and guidelines with an opinion on keep/delete (we distinguish argument based vote by adding an exclamation mark before it, as !vote.) Anup [Talk] 17:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has significant coverage in multiple secondary, independent and reliable sources, thus qualifies for inclusion per WP:GNG. I re-wrote the article and added few refs to it that substantiates my !keep argument. Anup [Talk] 17:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: Thank you. I am new to this, so didn't realize that my response comment meant a double vote. I simply intended to respond to AKS.9955 that I continued to disagree and continued to vote to Keep the article based on my comments included as part of that segment. I did read WP:PG already, and yes, I understand that the final outcome is not based on votes, but on the credibility of the argument made one way or another. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion and to the article itself.

shortindiangirl [Talk] 18:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC) Shortindiangirl (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please talk a look at the sources listed in the article and check it against our GNG criteria? Anup [Talk] 04:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I consider none of the sources sufficiently reliable to support an article. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Even if everything in this article, and as noted in the list of performances above, were true, he fails notability either under WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO. The audiences and followers asserted, especially in such a large potential audience market, are ordinary to the point of being run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cannot see where this meets any of the criteria under WP:CREATIVE, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not sure why we're discounting what looks to me to be substantial coverage in publications like The Hindu and Bangalore Mirror, that are in the article. Am I missing something?Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Murthy, Neeraja (2015-09-28). "Mayamma rocks the city". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  It was Saturday night fever at Lamakaan as ‘Mayamma’ entered the scene with the number ‘Endaro Mahaanubhavulu’ from the recent movie Bhale Bhale Magaadivoy.
  As the audience sat glued to their seats, drag queen Mayamma casts her spell with a riveting performance. She is joined by exotic belly dancer Lexi dancing the night away in high heels. ‘An evening with Mayamma and more’ organised by Queer Collective India’s Hyderabad chapter showcased the queer talent with a lot of spirit and spunk. The evening also saw four skits by Hyderabad-based artistes and a stand-up comedy show by Mumbai-based Naveen Noronha.
  A few hours before the show, over hot chai and samosas, Alex Mathew and Alex Victor share their stories, their journey in transforming into Mayamma and Lexi respectively. “I am a man on the street and woman on stage,” declares Alex Mathew. He was a singer and theatre actor who felt stagnated as a performer. “I even performed in Lamakaan in 2012. I was seeking inspiration and doing research to be a performer with a difference,” he states. That’s when his focus shifted to being a drag performer. Creating a character, being like a woman and singing and acting like a woman on stage followed and Mayamma was born; a spirited woman looking luminous in her Kerala saris, complete with a Mallu accent.
2. Iyengar, Vidya (2015-02-28). "A lesson in gender that's not a drag". Bangalore Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  Alex Mathew is a tall and unassuming 26-year old who works for a human rights and youth leadership NGO through the week. But every now and then, this unremarkable young man transforms into Mayamma, a drag queen who dresses in Kerala-style sarees and regales audiences with song-dance-and-improv comedy routines. Concerned about issues such as individualism, gender equality and feminism, Mayamma is Mathew's way of raising awareness about gender issues and "self-expression through entertainment".
  Speaking of the genesis of his flashy alter ego, Mathew, who moved to Bengaluru from Hyderabad in December 2012 talks about how he was often rejected by theatre production companies because of his Malayali accent. "I decided to turn the adversity to my advantage. I had come across Dileep-starrer Mayamohini (a Malayalam film where the star dresses in drag) and the Hollywood film Mrs Doubtfire; I decided to develop Mayamma's character based on these films," Mathew says. For him, drag is a creative outlet and a way to make a cultural statement. For the first performance in Humming Tree in Indirangar in September, Mathew wore a sari with minimal make up.
3. Prakasam, Keerthi (2015-03-21). "Meet Mayamma - The Drag Queen with a Malayali twist". The News Minute. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  Alex Mathew, the man who is behind the stage name "Mayamma", says she stands for "individualism, gender equality and feminism". Twenty six year old Alex hopes to address such issues vocally with his onstage female alter ego.
  Alex, unlike Mayamma is from Kochi, Kerala. He is right now working with The Gandhi Foundation, and is an MBA holder. Though Alex was part of many theatre activities, he knew that he wasn't content.
  Mayamma was born around September last year. She got the name because 'I liked the idea of being the mother of illusions", he says. The initial idea was a series of Youtube videos as Mayamma. "But before all that I started performing, so far in Bangalore. It is a good going so far, the audience like the 'Malayali' thing I throw in by saying 'Chechi and Chetta, Kutties and Kuttans'".
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Mayamma to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Has just about enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTombs48 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The re-written article also claims no notability. Thanks to tabloids our article is now full of trivia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Even,the re-written article fails to assert any notability.I may be wrong but I think that editors should understand mentions in national newspapers do not automatically warrant someone an article in WIKIPEDIA.It is the duty and work of the press/media to highlight all those who stand for a change.But that does not confer upon them the status of being notable until their contributions ( not just the fact-that they have dared too stand for a change) have actually managed to secure the limelight!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 12:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG disagrees with this interpretation. In what ways are the sources identified not significant, reliable, and independent? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lankiveil (talk · contribs), editors at AfD now frequently disregard and significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources and WP:GNG. This AfD is one example of this. It is unclear how The Hindu, the Bangalore Mirror, and The News Minute are "tabloids" as one editor mentioned above. Instead of relying on reliable sources, they are instead basing their opinion on whether they personally feel a subject is notable.
    It is clear systemic bias if Mayamma, an Indian gay rights activist and drag queen, is deleted because editors personally feel she is non-notable even though she clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline based on the significant coverage in reliable sources.
    Cunard (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - We are on the same page here I think. A lot of the statements here are WP:JNN and will be treated as such by the closing admin. This one at least attempts to make an argument from policy, even though the interpretation is not correct, which is why I chose to respond to it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete -- the re-written article, while neutral in tone, fails to establish any notability for the subject. An unremarkable individual and reads like a vanity page (because of lack of notability). K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 29 October 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. Opinions vary, but the strongest argument seems to be the sources given by Cunard, backed up by several others. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoho Corporation[edit]

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

My extensice PROD removed by someone who was likely either part of this company or a user I encountered last night who was upset about an article, I'm not sure, but my concerns are still genuine and clear, as this is only PR entirely, it has been touched by the company and businessman himself as the history shows and there's simply nothing actually of the severe improvements needed and it's not going to happen because it's all unconvincing PR. SwisterTwister talk 15:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 18:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete or redirect to Zoho Office Suite, which is minor but notable - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The company is notable, it's not a close call in my opinion, but obviously the article needs work. The company is well known as an independent, cheap business SaaS app. It receives regular and extensive coverage in independent reliable sources:

Information Week: [19]

PC Mag [20]

Diginomica [21]

The Next Web [22].

All four of those articles are by writers/reviewers that work for the publications in question and have written extensively about many companies. And that's just in the last 12 weeks. Chris vLS (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem is that improvement would require sources. (That Diginomica piece comes closest, but it appears to be a blog about startups run by an analyst company, i.e. sponsored information is literally their business; not quite what we generally mean by editorially-reviewed RS.) I'm not sure this is usefully a separate article from the one about the office suite or about Zoho Survey, which says in the article it's part of the office suite ... - David Gerard (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are tons of sources. Google "zoho venturebeat" "zoho techcrunch" "zoho techrepublic" to find lots of sources going back years. They have been listed in Gartner Magic Quadrants for years. Heck, there are probably articles about companies that have received less coverage than Zoho's ads during Salesforce's conference the last three years. (Google "zoho dreamforce") Chris vLS (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actual refs in the article would be 100% more convincing than "I'm not going to tell you, go prove my point for me" - David Gerard (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as corporate spam; strictly a client prospectus / product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. No value to the project at this time, and no indications of notability or significance. Name could be redirected after deletion to Zoho Office Suite at editorial discretion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zoho Office Suite. There's enough for the product and the company can fit in there. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Arakali, Harichandan (2016-06-06). "The Bootstrapped Buddhist: How Sridhar Vembu built Zoho". Forbes India. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  But nothing else at Zoho Corp is child’s play: The 48-year-old Vembu is deadly serious about how he runs the company, which he co-founded as AdventNet Inc in 1996 with his brothers Kumar and Sekar, as well as Tony Thomas, an entrepreneur who wrote an early version of the software that would become WebNMS, the company’s first product which found buyers in telecom network equipment makers like Cisco Systems, Inc. (Thomas was three years senior to Vembu at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.)
  Thomas served as the first CEO of AdventNet and was also its chairman and chief technology officer for a spell. Vembu was its chief evangelist, which meant he focussed on promoting and marketing the technology the company was selling. Vembu took over as CEO in 2000 while Thomas, in 2004, moved out to start another company Applibase Inc in Sunnyvale, California, which was acquired by internet company Vtiger. He now runs Edcite, an education startup in the Bay Area, which he founded four years ago. Thomas retains a stake in Zoho, and also serves as a member of the advisory board at Vembu Technologies Private Limited, founded by Sekar.
  ...
  AdventNet became Zoho Corporation Pvt Ltd only in 2009, and it was around that time that the direction in which the company was headed crystallised. Businesses were increasingly turning to the internet for rented software to run their operations, rather than buy licences for expensive software. Zoho.com, the company’s youngest division, offering internet-based software for work—from email to collaboration and office productivity tools to software for managing customers, vendors and partners—was emerging as the most promising for the future.
  There was also a shift in geography: While AdventNet Inc was a US company with an India development centre, Zoho Corp is incorporated in India and the company’s Pleasanton, California, centre remains the global headquarters. Vembu, who works out of the Pleasanton office which is sales-facing, visits India, where all of the development activity takes place, usually once every quarter.
  Apart from Zoho.com, Zoho Corp has two other divisions: The telecom network software division WebNMS, which the company began with, and the Manage Engine division, started around 2003, which builds software for companies to monitor and manage their own IT networks. Manage Engine accounts for over half of Zoho Corp’s revenues, but Zoho.com is the fastest growing. Vembu won’t reveal any additional details of the privately held company, but in November 2012, Bloomberg published an interview with the Zoho chief that put Manage Engine’s revenue at $120 million, while Zoho Corp’s overall revenue was close to $200 million at that time. Vembu likes to say Zoho Corp today has revenue per employee that’s twice that of Infosys, which at a rough reckoning puts his current revenues at about $360-$370 million.
2. Rohr, Steve (2009-08-26). "Zoho: Thriving Amid the Giants". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  But Zoho, a company based in Pleasanton, Calif., that offers similar services, is solidly profitable, with revenue of more than $50 million a year. And it has never taken a cent in venture capital or bank loans.
  Now, Zoho has other businesses — data center and networking management tools — but the online productivity suite is its fastest-growing operation, said Sridhar Vembu, Zoho’s chief executive. And Zoho’s foothold suggests that there will be promising openings for innovative upstarts even in markets, like online productivity applications, that are expected to be dominated by a few large companies.
  ...
  Part of the opportunity for Zoho lies in differentiation. It has 19 online productivity and collaboration applications, including customer relationship management, project management and invoicing. So it only competes head-to-head against Google with five offerings.
  Zoho focuses mainly on the business market. Half of its distribution is through partners that integrate Zoho products into their offerings. Most of those partners are Web-based services. For example, Box.net, a service for storing, backing up and sharing documents, uses Zoho as the editing tool for uploaded documents. Low-cost Web-based software makes these business mash-ups possible in a way that would not work with traditional software.
3. Stross, Randall (2009-04-04). "Small Company Offers Web-Based Competition for Microsoft Word". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  The best online word processor, however, may be the one from a tiny company, Zoho, a nimble innovator. Zoho Writer is running close enough to Word to imagine that it and other online word processors will be able to do most everything that Word can do, and more.
  Zoho Writer handles the basics and provides many advanced functions without breaking a sweat — like the ability to edit a document when page breaks are displayed. Google Docs can’t. Writer works even when one is offline, thanks to open source technology developed by Google, and used by Zoho in its word processor four months before Google used it.
  ...
  Zoho is a division of AdventNet, which provides online software services to corporate I.T. departments and is based in Pleasanton, Calif. AdventNet, privately held, says its I.T. software is profitable but doesn’t claim the same for Zoho, which AdventNet created in 2005.
4. Duffy, Jill (2016-10-12). "Why Zoho Wants to Be the Operating System for Businesses". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  The vision of Zoho Corporation is to become the "operating system of business." Originally founded in 1996 as AdventNet, Inc., a network management company, Zoho changed gears in 2005 to focus on cloud-based services for businesses. Since then, Zoho's offerings have grown to include 34 Web apps and 30 mobile apps for running all aspects of a business, from project management and human resources to email and social media tracking. In 2008, the company hit one million users. Today, that number exceeds 20 million. As I found when I recently visited Zoho's headquarters in Chennai, India, the company's do-it-all, full-services approach is not only reserved for its customers.
  ...
  In the last few years, Zoho has been through a major growth spurt. It hit 1 million users in August 2008, 5 million by January 2012, and 10 million by February 2014. Now, two years later, it has doubled again.
  Of Zoho's apps, Zoho Mail has the largest user base, but Zoho CRM$20.00 at Zoho has the largest customer base and is by many accounts the company's best known product. All told, the company has more than 100,000 customers. In the software business, customers are often a more clear indicator of size than users (because a user can be anyone who created a free account and never really used it). To put Zoho's 100,000 into perspective, Salesforce reported having more than 150,000 customers in its 2015 report [PDF].
  ...
  Zoho's headquarters are in an expansive IT park on the outskirts of town. The company moved there a few years ago to get out of a more crowded section of Chennai called Velachery, where it was quickly running out of space. The new site is on nearly 45 acres, much of it still undeveloped. A massive project is in the works to build multiple offices that will become the workplace for 8,000 to 9,000 employees when it's all finished.
5. "Zoho scores big with Indian software products; shuns IPO". Hindustan Times. 2014-11-15. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  It has more than 100,000 customers in over 100 countries anand counts Microsoft as its leading competitor. It is possibly India's most untold software success story.
  Zoho Corporation Pvt Ltd, functioning from a trendy IT park surrounded by coconut trees in the Chennai suburb of Porur, is also breaking the myth that Indians are good for cheap labour and not high-value products.
  If many still have not heard of the 2,500-employee company, it must be because it shuns the stuff ambitious software companies are often in the news for: raising venture capital, going public with a share issue, getting acquired or borrowing from banks to expand.
  ...
  AdventNet began as a humble maker of niche telecom products but an industry crash around 2,000 threatened prospects and it formed Zoho Corporation in 2003 as a new flagship unit.
  Zoho is a "born-on-the-cloud" business that offers software as a service (SaaS) to small enterprises much like Google's Apps or Microsoft's Office 365. Its range includes everything from word processing and spreadsheets to recruitment and customer relations management (CRM).
  Zoho does not disclose revenues but Vegesna says it is a "few hundred million dollars" and growing 70% year on year. On a conservative estimate of $400 million, Zoho has a revenue per employee of around $160,000 - three times that of Infosys.
6. Simhan, T.E. Raja (2012-06-06). "The 'smartest unknown entrepreneur'". Business Line. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  Forbes describes Mr Sridhar Vembu as the ‘Smartest Unknown Indian Entrepreneur.' But little is known in India about this founder and CEO of Zoho Corporation, which is India's Google. It offers most of the products that Google offers, including email application.
  It is a story of ‘rags to riches' for the soft spoken, middle class Chennai lad who has created a $150-million company based out of Chennai.
  The IIT Madras alumnus formed AdventNet in 1996 along with two of his brothers and three friends. AdventNet is today better known as Zoho, which boasts of nearly 60,000 clients, including NASA, GE, Sony, Lufthansa, and AOL.
  Zoho today employs 1,600 at the DLF IT Park.
7. Milian, Mark (2012-11-29). "No VC: Zoho CEO 'Couldn't Care Less for Wall Street'". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  [Sridhar] Vembu, the chief executive officer for Zoho, has no aspirations to take the company public. In 2000, he turned down a venture capitalist who would have valued the company at $200 million, he said. Now, Zoho makes nearly that amount in annual revenue.
  ...
  Vembu’s company started out as an excuse for him to move back home to Chennai, India. He had been working on wireless technology for two years at San Diego-based Qualcomm, as did his brother, a software engineer. Then in 1996, the pair decided to do their own thing.
  The brothers also took a while to decide on a name. The company had operated under Vembu Systems, Advent Network Management and AdventNet over the years. One reason for the changes was fear of being sued over trademark infringement, which can kill a company without venture capital, Vembu said.
  ...
  Early on, the startup sold software to network-management companies, including Cisco Systems and Motorola. At the height of the dot-com bubble in 2000, when there were hundreds of networking companies in Silicon Valley, AdventNet sold its products to about half of them, according to Vembu. When the industry imploded, the company’s revenue dropped precipitously.
  Then in 2004, AdventNet introduced ManageEngine, a software suite for corporate information-technology departments that now accounts for $120 million in annual revenue. The following year, the company created Zoho, which includes Web-based sales management, communication and productive tools.
8. Gallagher, Dan (2003-04-13). "Thomas follows a niche strategy". San Francisco Business Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-21. Retrieved 2016-10-21.
  The article notes:
  Tony Thomas has learned the value of staying power in a short time.
  Seven years after starting his first company, the India-born entrepreneur is still in the game. Thomas' company, AdventNet Inc. of Pleasanton, already has survived brutal market swings and has managed to outlast many of his contemporaries.
  The company has done this on its own dime; AdventNet has not received any venture capital funding since its founding in 1996. This accomplishment is even more notable given that the company's target market - the battered telecommunications industry - is still in the midst of a bone-crunching downturn that has humbled once mighty giants such as Cisco Systems Inc., Nortel Corp. and Lucent Technologies Inc.
  ...
  AdventNet competes in a small niche of this market, which keeps it from going head-to-head with giants such as IBM Corp., BMC Software Inc. and Hewlett-Packard Co. But the company's focus on the telecommunications sector still left it vulnerable when that market began to sputter in 2001.
  ...
  More than 90 percent of AdventNet's 420-person work force is based in the company's facilities in Chennai, a city in Southern India near Thomas' hometown of Bangalore.
9. The numerous articles in TechCrunch: https://techcrunch.com/tag/zoho/.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zoho Corporation to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge to Zoho Office Suite because Zoho Corporation contains more divisions than Zoho.com. From the Forbes India article I linked above:
Apart from Zoho.com, Zoho Corp has two other divisions: The telecom network software division WebNMS, which the company began with, and the Manage Engine division, started around 2003, which builds software for companies to monitor and manage their own IT networks. Manage Engine accounts for over half of Zoho Corp’s revenues, but Zoho.com is the fastest growing. Vembu won’t reveal any additional details of the privately held company, but in November 2012, Bloomberg published an interview with the Zoho chief that put Manage Engine’s revenue at $120 million, while Zoho Corp’s overall revenue was close to $200 million at that time. Vembu likes to say Zoho Corp today has revenue per employee that’s twice that of Infosys, which at a rough reckoning puts his current revenues at about $360-$370 million.
Cunard (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Each one of those contains blatantly over specifics about the company such as the dollar amounts the company spent either by themselces or by partnering with other companies, that is blatant PR because only the company knows that and therefore is advertising it, to attempt interest by clients and investors, therefore it's not independent or substantial. Every single one of those is simply republishing the company's own plans including actual quotes, therefore it's also not independent or substantial, and we shouldn't mistake it as otherwise simply because it was republished in a news source. This is the type of churnalism "news" that simply consists of the company supplying its own information and blatantly including company specifics, as with the links above.

Therefore, simply quoting and then actually emphasizing them actually worsens the situation by then actually showing the genuine bareness of quality substantial news, not simply the obvious republished company quotes, plans and dollar specifics. Note how literally every single paragraph always starts with "From the company:....", "The company offers" (this one is particularly listed several times, naturally) "The company plans", "The businessman's thoughts are", "the company focuses", "The company's activities include", "The company's customers", "The founders say" or "The company says" therefore clear PR and certainly not independent. By not actually acknowledging these blatant quotes before listing them as "substantial and independent", it shows we cannot consider such PR sources to be convincing. Another thing is that there's been explicitly clear consensus Indian news are clear "pay-for" news and therefore cannot be taken seriously regardless of what is claimed or mentioned, and it's again especially clear when the information considerably consists pf interviewed information and quotes. Once we start accepting any means of republished PR, we are then actually first-hand accepting advertising, in violations of WP:ADVERTISING, WP:DEL14 and WP:NOT, therefore we actually have choices to toss aside any 'republished news' for the sake of saving this encyclopedia. SwisterTwister talk 06:44, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - if the low-quality churnalism in Cunard's supplied sources are the best that can be found, this is evidence against the company actually being notable - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That the journalists interviewed the subject of their articles is good journalistic practice. Only some of the coverage contains quotes like "The company says". Much of the coverage is written in the journalists' own words. Cunard (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup and the company has been covered in multiple reliable, independent sources, per above. The article needs work, but it's notable. Prefer redirect to delete if consensus is that it's not notable. Smartyllama (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP (a significantly tougher test than the WP:GNG). The content, and coverage, is no more than facts or promotion. Zoho Office Suite is no better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CORPDEPTH is met through the significant coverage in The New York Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, PC Week, and Forbes India.
The content, and coverage, is no more than facts or promotion. – it is good that the content contains facts—why is this a bad thing? Regarding the accusation about promotion, no evidence has been provided here that the very reputable publications The New York Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, PC Week, and Forbes India are publishing advertisements masquerading as serious news articles about Zoho. Cunard (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources you've highlighted read to me as infomercials. A weak pretence of independent coverage, no genuine objective criticism. I'm guess that tees days this is how newspapers and journalists pay their bills. I used to pay for weekly delivery of the New York Times, long ago. I guess it's my fault, I haven't paid directly for a newspaper with any regularity for many years now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree that The New York Times is publishing "infomercials". It is not necessary for an article about a company to have "genuine objective criticism" to make the source independent of the subject. That you are saying The New York Times is not independent of Zoho Corporation merely because it has not published criticism of Zoho yet strongly underscores the arguments for deletion are very weak. Cunard (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I never cared much for the business and technology sections, but everything I have read on Zoho is infomercial. Including from the NYT. And it is the same infomercial across the newspapers, computer magazines, and review sites. Infomercial cross how-to. Occasional information on Zoho limitations is always a subtle promotion of another product, not necessarily Zoho, it is all part of a bigger game. Business promotion is not encyclopedic content, and the line is repeatedly crossed on the three Wikipedia Zoho articles. Zoho clearly engages in promotion and brand management, and it permeates everything I can find. True, this is a weak delete, there is no denying its wide existence, and if kept it needs to be watched for excessive promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per a review of available sources, such as those provided above by Chrisvls and Cunard. Additional sources are also available, such as [23], [24], [25] and more. Promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the sources listed are not convincing me to change my vote in favour of retaining the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Zoho Office Suite (If at all needed) - If this is the quality of the "best" sources we have found, then this should be deleted to prevent the encyclopaedia from becoming a promotional garbage dump. A lot of it is coverage about the product which cannot be used for demonstrating notability of the company. A lot of the rest is essentially dependent on quotes by an employee which doesn't satisfy CORPIND. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per WP:PRODUCT, part of the WP:CORP notability guideline page, "If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't help to prove notability of the organisation. "A specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right". --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep we've got sources that seem quite reasonable. The better sources mostly discuss the company's products, but that's fine and exactly what we expect a company to be discussed for. And sources like [26] seem to be fine if overly fawning. And this isn't some small company--apparently they have 3000+ employees. All told we have a company which has plenty of coverage, is large, and seems to have massive coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to take this a step farther. Not having an article on Zoho would be a flaw in our encyclopedia. This is a very large and well covered topic. For now most of the coverage is fawning, but it appears to be a David trying to take market share from a Goliath (well two, Google and Salesforce). We've got coverage in the best sources we could expect, including the NYT. It's over the bar by a bunch. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 7 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 PlentyOfFish. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Frind[edit]

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

Not notable outside of POF, (rightly) limited personal info here would fit on PlentyofFish nicely. Anmccaff (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect per nom - a basic BEFORE shows lots of RSes mentioning his name, but all concerning PlentyOfFish and without substantial biographical details. I found non-RSes with bio details, so it's possible an RS has covered them - David Gerard (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlentyofFish; the subject is not independently notable per available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the sources I provided below, and see also WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and then Redirect with the genuine basis of there actually being no separate information of an article of her own therefore aside from the clearly best claims existing, "founder of PlentyofFish", there's nothing to sensibly save. SwisterTwister talk 06:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced search for:
"Markus Frind"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

Keep – This notable businessman comfortably passes WP:BASIC per available sources. See source examples below, and note that additional sources are also available in online searches that cover him, his life, his background, his entrepreneurship, etc. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:29, 11 October 2016 (UTC) (Addendum: I struck duplicate sources in my list below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

References

Keep: per North America's excellent WP:NEXIST. Safehaven86 (talk) 05:09, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple google-dredge. It includes a regurgitated clickbait article, two or three copies of an identical syndicated column, and several articles which are essentially about the company, not the man. Anmccaff (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

+1, these sources don't contain significant biographical detail about the subject. Literally all his notability is from Plentyoffish - David Gerard (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the NYT and BBC articles listed above, plus Inc, Global News, and Business Insider establish his notability. The articles contain significant information about him, including focusing on how he built a fortune by apparently working only ten hours a week. At a minimum, the article should be merged/redirected, although I think it meets WP:GNG on its own.Safehaven86 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to PlentyOfFish (but preserve history). Typical WP:BIO1E. We don't need to create another new page about him. Considering the small amount of information in the article, I would say a redirect suffices here. Anything required can be easily pulled out from the history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PlentyOfFish per BLP1E - Is only notable for one thing which is founding this site, Other than that they're not known for anything, Better off redirected. –Davey2010^Talk 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the company. The best sources, the NYT and the BBC cover him only incidentally--90% of each of the article is about the notable company. DGG ( talk ) 16:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources turned up by NorthAmerica, which include profiles in major RS (New York Times, BBC, Globe and Mail) support notability independent of the company he founded - and has now sold. They also supply material from which article can be expanded.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, ongoing coverage in major RS news outlets long after sale of company. [27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. User:Northamerica1000 could have stopped at the third citation; this AfD is carpetbombed with significant coverage whose primary focus is Marcus Frind. The coverage is related to his company, but it is clearly about how Frind's life experience, personality, abilities, attitudes, etc, affect the company. There is other source coverage whose primary subject is PlentyOfFish, and those articles are not the same as these. Red herrings: WP:BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals, not Frind. The significant coverage of Frind in major media is dated 2007, 2008, 2012, 2014, 2016... How is that one event? The 2007 WSJ and NYT profiles found significance in Frind's individual productivity running such a high traffic/profitable website alone. The 2012 Globe and Mail profile covers Frind's childhood, education, family, and personality to shed light on his current business practices running a larger company. In 2015, the coverage was about the sale of his company. The list goes on. One event? Many events. Low profile? Absurd. Is his role in the event(s) not substantial or well documented? Also absurd. Bio doesn't even pass one of the three main criteria of BLP1E. WP:BIO1E would be appropriate only if Frind were not alive, but even then it has looser criteria than BLP1E. An article about non-living person can be kept if only two of the conditions are met; with a living person, you can still delete the article if they are low-profile. Also, PlentyOfFish is a company, not an event. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Bratland: Thanks for your detailed analysis. As an "other stuff exists" comparison, Frind may not be quite as notable as Steve Jobs, but overall, I feel that he passes WP:BASIC relative to the depth of coverage he has received. Being the founder of the world's largest online dating website is not exactly small apples. I wonder what would occur if Jobs' article was nominated for deletion. After all, he's mostly known just for for Apple, like it's just one "event" too, right? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to PlentyOfFish. WP:BIO1E. User:Northamerica1000's sources are covering the person only in respect to PlentyOfFish, and the articles are really about PlentyOfFish. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frind is not dead. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no BLP problems. Therefore not a BLP1E case. It therefore falls to being a BIO1E issue, although there is still the WP:CORP angle. A bio on a single company CEO is really an article on the company. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BLP problems are not what distinguishes these two standards. Where are you getting that from? One is for living people, the other is not. Also what exactly is the "one event"? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BIO1E isn't solely for dead people. And the "event" here is broadly considered to being the founder of a company. The decision whether to create a standalone page depends on the amount of coverage available. For certain people like Mark Zuckerberg who have a lot of coverage, it requires a separate article. However, for someone like the subject of this article, it is best covered in the article of the company itself. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you find yourself having to torture the meaning of a simple English word to make an argument, it could be the premise is flawed. Every example or description at WP:EVENT is a breaking news event; none are companies or careers. Same at the two biographical standards. Neither of which says you get to choose whichever one serves you best. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "torturing" the meaning, but event is broadly defined as an occurrence. It is not restricted to a breaking news event. The subject being a CEO is...one event? Or is it multiple events? Additionally, the guideline to be considered is WP:NOPAGE. The coverage here is more about the company than the person. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's valid if you want to advocate broadening the scope of "one event" this way, but it is unprecedented. Maybe consensus will be that we should begin interpreting the guidelines this way, but for the reasons already given I don't think it's a good idea. The editorial judgement that a standalone page is not helpful to readers is also a valid opinion, though I disagree in this case. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, comments. First, I think the idea that being the founder and CEO of any major enterprise is not a point event in the sense used above. I'd also add there appears to be some ide that seeing Frind as not separately notable is a kind of personal criticism. It's not, or at least need not be. His actual available bio does seem to tie back almost entirely into information suited for the POF article, though, and until that changes, there is little to be gained from having two separate articles. Anmccaff (talk) 06:07, 24 October 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) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Dot for Diabetes[edit]

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

Subject lacks coverage in reliable sources Meatsgains (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete obvious PR; a hijacking of Wikipedia. TNT is required. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references provided are nothing to do with Blue Dot; a quick internet search reveals nothing; as the user above has said, this appears to be purely promotional Spiderone 11:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete TNT this is nothing else. Also there is no coverage beyond the launch [28],[29]. This seems to be using Wikipedia for promotion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:41, 29 October 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) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mastu Conductor[edit]

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

Film with questionable notability as well as unsourced content. The only hits I can find on Google seem to be: Wikipedia, Facebook, Youtube and a download this film. Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Totally unnotable. Fails WP:NFILM. It was released on YouTube and it can be found no where other than YouTube (disregard user-generated content). Anup [Talk] 23:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis, in my own searches I have not found anything resambling a secondary RS. --Cavarrone 10:11, 31 October 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) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Langit Lupa episodes[edit]

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

A list for a tv show that has not aired yet, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Promise of Forever episodes Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Too Soon. Aoba47 (talk) 14:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, it's too soon. Cavarrone 10:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Second Wife episodes[edit]

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

A list for a tv show that has not aired yet-see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Promise of Forever episodes Wgolf (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Too Soon. Aoba47 (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, it's too soon. --Cavarrone 21:15, 31 October 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) 16:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Promise of Forever episodes[edit]

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

a nonexistent list that does not exist yet-as the TV show has not aired yet. See also List of Because You Love Me episodes Wgolf (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Too Soon. Aoba47 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:TOOSOON and provides no context whatsoever. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 30 October 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 merge to Chappie_(film)#Sequel. I'm going to go ahead and boldly merge this. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chappie 2[edit]

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

Was not sure if I should do a prod or a AFD, but I went with this. This is a sequel that is not even in production yet. I'm thinking either delete or redirect to Chappie (film) Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chappie (film)#Sequel per WP:TOOSOON MarnetteD|Talk 19:58, 23 October 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) 16:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Punzalan[edit]

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

Infant who appeared in tv show. No other indication of notability. agtx 18:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I've got zero results which completely fails GNG. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 20:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near enough to justify an article on this infant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Instaurare (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG. Mentioned in GMA News independent article of actress Lovi Poe^[1] and GMA Entertainment Actors Profile^[2]. Also mentioned in True Viral News ^[3], Lovi Poe's Official IG ^[4] and also trended nationwide (Philippines) in IG ^[5] and Twitter ^[6] to prove the actor's large fan base.

References

CORRECTION to the biased assumption of (User:Agtx) Actor appeared in a TV show is incorrect. Actor advanced as a major cast in a prime time TV soap that is still airing as of press time (four months on air). Actor also appeared in a previous TV soap (Sinungaling Mong Puso).

Your social accounts (User:Callmemirela) should not be part of this discussion as we are debating about a real celebrity whilst you are not. Also, the official accounts of TV channel GMA Network and of Filipino celebrity Lovi Poe were referenced to supplement the fact that the actor has a large following (hence the reference on trending and viral terms).

No need to disparage the actor with your play on words (User:RickinBaltimore) (Cute kid, not notable) as you already intend to delete the actor's page. Remember, babies can't defend themselves. --leetphenom 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cute kid, not notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Official accounts do not make it notable. By that basis, I should have my own Wikipedia article as I have my own Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and Snapchat accounts. A few articles (maybe 2-5 in this case) doesn't make it that more notable either. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:GNG. Jeez articles on babies? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the article references constitute depth of coverage. Cute baby though! A Train^talk 16:31, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even under the reasonable assumption that we'll see more coverage because they keep bringing the personality back because they're good for acting, this is WP:TOOSOON. No objections once this subject passes WP:NACTOR. Being in the scene as a baby does not confer the active participation necessary to consider contributions to the field. Hasteur (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just appearing on a show is not grounds for notability, no active participation. Including infants in Wikipedia is also a big moral issue IMO. EternalNomad (talk) 03:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Majora (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

China Power New Energy Development Company Limited[edit]

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

Nothing whatsoever to indicate that this meets WP:NCORP. A lot of stock quotes and PR cruft but I could not find any actual discussion. Originally tagged with a CSD tag but that was removed by the article creator against policy. Instead of arguing over it, I brought it here so the community can decide. Majora (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: non-notable company. Keep: Oh, obviously a notable company. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep @KGirlTrucker81: if First Solar is notable with 2MW capacity, and it is, look at the size of the article, why is their Chinese partner CPNED with 1000x (2GW) the installed capacity not notable? Likewise it is but the sources are primarily in Chinese. Which is acceptable under en.wp WP:RS, allowing for the article to be expanded. All the Big 5 China gencos have clean-green babies, this is the clean-green baby of Big 5 CPID, note the chairperson is the only daughter of former Chinese Premier Li Peng. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. ~~At the same time, maybe it would be appropriate to merge it into the article about its parent, State Power Investment Corporation.~~ Beagel (talk) 08:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to where that is exactly? As stated, I did not find much through searching and the only things currently on the article is a PR statement, one quote, and an annual report released by the company. --Majora (talk) 14:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.g. First Solar, CPINE to cooperate on solar projects in China, U.S. by Reuters, reported by journalists, not press-release; UPDATE 2-China Power New Energy hikes renewable energy targetby Reuters, reported by journalists, not press-release; Shares in nuclear power company formerly run by ex-premier Li Peng’s daughter surge 20 per cent in wake of her resignation by The South China Morning Post; www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/china-power-looks-at-pv-in-three-new-provinces_100012670/ by PV Magazine (well, PV Magazine is blacklisted for spamming but it does not mean this source does not satisfy WP:RS as it is wrote by an independent journalist, not press release; [30] and [31] by ReCharge, all by authors, not press releases; [32] and [33] by SEEnews, all by authors, not press releases; etc. just to say some in English. And there is a significant number of sources in Chinese. Beagel (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:29, 23 October 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) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lanyon[edit]

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

This person fails WP:AUTHOR, non-notable, and very few referenced reliable sources. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Lacking "significant coverage" as per the guideline specified here: WP:GNG. --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm gay myself, was a bookseller, and read SF, but have never heard of this writer. Bearian (talk) 13:36, 25 October 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Solar photonics[edit]

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

I can't find notability for this topic. No WP:RS other than the primary-source first-use of this term is mentioned in the article (User:Srleffler mentioned this on its talkpage over 7 years ago and nothing has changed since). Scanning the first few pages of google hits for this term, I only saw off-topic results (name of a company). DMacks (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability/sourcing/neologism. New term apparently used only by the group that coined it. --Srleffler (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability by lacking reliable sources (see WP:RS). --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:46, 23 October 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) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lumberjack (roller coaster)[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a proposed but as yet unbuilt roller coaster, which is being subject to inappropriate editwarring on the grounds that the claims about the name and the manufacturer may be false. Even if that's true, however, the appropriate way to get rid of an article is not just to erase the whole thing while leaving the title in Wikipedia as a blank page -- we have processes for getting rid of problematic content, and pageblanking is not one of them. And even if the inaccuracy claims are wrong and the article is actually correct, a roller coaster still doesn't get an automatic freebie just because it exists, if reliable source coverage about the roller coaster isn't present to support it. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not only is this article unsourced, Wikipedia already has an article, Mystic Timbers, about a roller coaster scheduled to open at the same amusement park in 2017 and that the park also "...began dropping hints about a new future attraction soon after the start of the 2016 season." WP:RS exist for 'Mystic Timbers', as cited in that article, but 'Lumberjack' is not even vaporware. (I've looked for sources By searches related to the park, the supposed roller name, and possible manufacturers... and found only 'Mystic Timbers'... except in Wikipedia. — Neonorange (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has no references. There isn't anything close to "significant coverage" anywhere (as per WP:GNG). --♫CheChe♫ talk 18:55, 23 October 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) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Padovan[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP, sourced only to a WordPress blog and the subject's own primary source website about himself with no reliable source coverage shown at all, of a child actor known for supporting roles in a couple of musicals. Simply being a working actor is not an automatic WP:NACTOR pass in and of itself, in the absence of reliable source coverage about the actor -- and we have a rule that because of personal privacy concerns and the potential for a Wikipedia article to cause harm, we have to be especially strict about the notability of minors. So there simply has to be quite a bit more to say than "he exists", and quite a bit more reliable sourcing to base it on, before a Wikipedia article about him becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For people under 18 we should proteect their privacy, even if they or their operatives do not. However this would not pass normal GNG. The two roles are hardly significant, and "multiple" usually means more than 2. The sources are no where near reliable, 3rd party sources, so it is no where near passing GNG. He may become a notable actor, but a lot of child actors in small roles remain such, and his roles are not of a level to justify the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references presented do not constitute "significant coverage" (specified in WP:GNG), nor are the reliable sources (under WP:RS). --♫CheChe♫ talk 19:01, 23 October 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) 16:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almshouse Road (road in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, USA)[edit]

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

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a local road in a suburban/exurban area, which just describes the road's physical route and completely fails to provide any context for what would make the road notable at all. While part of the route appears, per Google Maps, to be coterminous with Pennsylvania Route 332, that doesn't justify a standalone article about the named local road as a separate topic -- the part that is designated as a highway is already covered by the highway article, and the rest of it doesn't inherit notability by association just because the highway and the street name diverge in two different directions halfway between Richboro and Jamison. As always, every road that exists at all is not automatically an appropriate topic for a standalone article just because it exists, if it isn't the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—as a failure to meet WP:GNG for an independent topic. Assuming ad arguendo for a moment that this were retained, the title would need to be simplified, and the prose would need to be fixed to comply with the expectations of encyclopedic writing style. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article, and after attempting to follow the path of this road on Google Earth, it looks like a non-notable road to me. I would recommend against the creation of articles like this which are based on trying to turn road maps into prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with above. Nothing about this road indicates any notability. MB 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with above. Article is more like directions... Nordic Nightfury 12:04, 25 October 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) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Johnson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This entrepreneur appears to fail WP:NBIO. None of the sources in the article are reliable. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has been toned down a little, but seems to be promotional in nature(initially referring to this person as an "innovator", which is an opinion). 331dot (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO with a dose of WP:TNT. Sample copy:
"He harnesses solar power and lives off the grid." etc.

Strictly a marketing brochure for this unremarkable entrepreneur. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 24 October 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 redirected to Petite Noir#2009–12:_Early_career_with_Popskarr. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 22:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Popskarr[edit]

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

A music group with questionable notability (the creator of this page seems to have a history of making non notable pages with no refs as well) Looking around I can only find one Youtube video and a Facebook page. Wgolf (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petite_Noir#2009.E2.80.9312:_Early_career_with_Popskarr. This is already well covered in the main article for Petite Noir and there's nothing in this article that isn't already at Petite Noir. There's mention of Popskarr here and there in passing, but mostly in relation to Petite Noir's later works or to just say that the duo existed. There might be more coverage that isn't on the Internet, but until that surfaces this can redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-you might want to just look over the pages the creator has created-seems to be plenty that can be afd (or redirected), many the person made originally were redirects but they edited them into a article instead. Wgolf (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:16, 23 October 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 to keep - Sources have been presented and none have been refuted so am closing as keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Key[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for sports and athletics. Blogs such as http://theracquetballblog.blogspot.ca/ are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, she doesn't. Key has represented her country in her sport of racquetball at major international competitions, such as the Pan American Games and Racquetball World Championships. If you use the WP:NTENNIS notability criteria as a guideline, then that's sufficient for notability. If Key isn't notable, then what should criteria be? If you want to quibble on reference to a blog as a source, well, OK, although is that because of its name or some other reason? That is, if it was on a stand alone website - something like TheRacqueballJournal dot com - rather than on Blogger, would that be more acceptable? Trb333 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable raquetball competitor. Blogs can not be sued to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've changed the references to the official draws from the International Racquetball Federation and USA Racquetball websites. Again, I don't think notability is being addressed here so much as the perceived quality of the referenced source material. Trb333 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources could use better formatting (because used VE to format), but there is a pretty sizable number of sources that reference her from newspapers in the USA, Canada, Mexico, and other Spanish speaking countries. While these references may not be substantial on their own, they probably total over 30. Then you have a few sources that are more substantially about her a lot including [34]. Less substantial mentions include [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], I added a few to the article, but it needs more of a rewrite to improve it. The organization is a bit meh. --LauraHale (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Article could use clean up, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 03:20, 29 October 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 Microsoft Flight Simulator X (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Flight Simulator X SDK[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. — Gestrid (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to . It's a manual, not an encyclopedia article. It does not belong on Wikipedia. The SDK has a couple of mentions on Microsoft Flight Simulator X, so could be a useful redirect target. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Microsoft Flight Simulator X. I agree that this is a manual. Wikia would be a better place to put a guide like this. Deletion is OK, too, but keeping a redirect around won't hurt anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 25 October 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) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Baracuda Airways[edit]

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

No news on this airline since February 2016. The article says that they launched operations on 28 January, but I don't believe this is true as ch-aviation still lists the airline as "start-up"; the flight to Homa Bay was likely a one-off to mark the opening of the airport. The airline's website and Facebook page were active earlier in the year, but have been taken offline. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 16:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is only evidence they ever had one flight, which was in a rented airplane, and the company was only active for less than a month.JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. If an airline has only provided a single flight, it doesnt automatically inherit notability. Dragonese Nordic A permitted alt account for Nordic Nightfury 08:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonese Nordic (talk • contribs) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Günsel[edit]

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

Article about non-notable startup company (established two weeks ago...), sourced only to two press releases (the one in Turkish in the article is available in English here, on another site), and with no substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject showing up in a Google search either. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: AfD-discussion restored after having been blanked by the creator of the article... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it has now also been blanked by Special:Contributions/92.24.185.100... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a car manufaturer as claimed. That "our aim is establishing the car production factory" does not qualify as notable. --T*U (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Come back once they've made more than a prototype. Non-notable company. Yintan 11:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yintan: I deliberately nominated it for deletion at AfD, instead of being speedied per CSD A7, since it usually makes getting recreations deleted easier (since they can be nominated for speedy deletion per CSD G4, which seems to carry more weight than A7...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 12:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:30, 27 October 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 Speedied (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SONU SEHGAL[edit]

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

A7: No indication of notability. Joshualouie711 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:There is already a CSD awaiting processing on this unsourced biography (as with the related NEERAJ SEHGAL and ARVIND SEHGAL), so opening an AfD is probably superflous. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no claim to anything even remotely like notability. Plus it is totally unsourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of research universities in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

Content is WP:REDUNDANT to List of universities in Sri Lanka. Article is also poorly sourced - most of the entries in the list are unsourced. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge (to List of universities in Sri Lanka), concur with Obi2canibe the content is largely redundant and unsourced. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 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 as a week has not suggested otherwise (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 00:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Harness Tracks of America Driver of the Year[edit]

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

this award fails WP:GNG because it is not covered by multiple, independent sources. PabloTheMenace (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable within the horse world, and has coverage in reliable publications. I would also like to know why the editor nominating this is at AfD with only 19 edits. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep One of standardbred racing's biggest awards....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: This is like the Eclipse awards for harness racing. Plenty of sources every year. Article might benefit from some additional sourcing, though. Montanabw^(talk) 23:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - White Arabian Filly was kind enough to leave me a note on this matter. This is what I wrote to her:

Nomination of Harness Tracks of America Driver of the Year for deletion. They did this before I could even finish/make adjustments to the article as the Dan Patch Awards have to be organized. Plus, I don't think they understand that there can only be one source for an organization giving a specific award that they legally control. We could have (and eventually will, I assume) links with references to a particular driver winning the award in a particular year from various publications, but not the Award itself. I checked the parallel Eclipse Award for Outstanding Trainer article that has been there for a long time and they list only one source and refer to some sort of Champions list but that is listed elsewhere as only something informal so not a reference. Mateusz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateusz K (talk • contribs) 01:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- re-evaluate in a few months to see if the article meets GNG. Appears notable for now but needs additional secondary source, or the non-blue linked names should be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

USM Alger–USM El Harrach Derby[edit]

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

See WP:NRIVALRY; this article fails criteria because it is just a list of results; the two clubs are both located in Algiers but there is no indication of a real rivalry, certainly not a notable one. Spiderone 14:57, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Algeria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Hichem algerino 21:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hichem algerino: - I strongly disagree. For this to be a true rivalry, there needs to be more than just a collection of results and match reports. This rivalry may well exist, although I'm not even sure of that, the big question is whether WP:GNG is met. Wikipedia policy states that rivalries are not inherently notable and only can be passed if there is significant coverage from independent sources. Spiderone 09:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of sufficient coverage of the notion of a "rivalry" not just match reporting of individual games, to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is a notable article topic. Eldumpo (talk) 16:21, 26 October 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) 16:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina derby[edit]

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

No evidence that these fourth tier clubs' rivalry is notable. See WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 14:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 14:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 14:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to establish that this is a notable rivalry. The mere fact that two teams sometimes play each other doesn't establish that they have a notable rivalry. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of sufficient coverage of the notion of a "rivalry" not just match reporting of individual games, to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as noted above fails WP:NRIVALRY. Cavarrone 09:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adhil Bakeer Markar[edit]

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

This individual's only claim to fame is that he is the son/grandson of elected national politicians but notability is not inherited. There has been coverage of his death but this is to be expected - the sudden, unexpected death of any student in their dorm would be news. obi2canibe^{talk contr} 14:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indicated above being a member of a major political family does not establish notability ( WP:NOTINHERITED). The coverage of his death by itself doesn't establish notability (see WP:ONEEVENT) and I haven't been able to find any other significant reliable coverage apart from that relating to his death. Dan arndt (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination and WP:ONEVENT. EricSerge (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think all the sources on the article are enough for WP:GNG. JohnTombs48 (talk) 20:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the only reason that Markar received any news coverage is because of his family connections & his death (WP:ONEEVENT) - before that the only mention of him was in news reports on his father. He has not achieved any significant notability in his own right. Dan arndt (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Kanags (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adhil Bakeer Markar has gain significant coverage in all media forms in Sri Lanka and in the UK.NaminiGunasena (talk) 07:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - NaminiGunasena, apart from dying at an early age in a foreign country what notable achievements has he made? Dan arndt (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I stated in my nomination, the sudden death of any student would be news nowadays, particularly with the plethora of news sites. Here's a recent example where several reliable sources covered the death of a non-notable student: Mirror, Metro, MEN, Independent, MSN, YEP. Sad as the death may be, the coverage does not make him notable by Wikipedia standards.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As this is not a notable individual. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Lok Yee Deng[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - new evidence below shows he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:02, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - has yet to play a fully pro match Spiderone 07:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now keep as per new evidence Spiderone 16:47, 28 October 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) 13:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the subject of this article has played for the Malaysia national football team (see here) and thus passes NFOOTY. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down:, @GiantSnowman: and @Johnpacklambert: I would ask you guys to have a second look at the new evidence to see if this is enough evidence to say that he passes NFOOTY. I would say it's a reliable source. Spiderone 10:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the website above. Also see the national football teams website as the stats show that he participated in a FIFA match before. NgYShung ^huh? 02:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Informal Session, Pt. 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, no significant media coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The artist isn't notable, and neither is this EP. No coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references and sources talking about the artist, all mentioned in the page. --Fabpec (talk) 10:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per above and no there are no reliable sources in the article. It is discogs, the band's own website, and a brief review in a magazine that hardly consitutes significant coverage.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:40, 24 October 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) 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MOONMOON[edit]

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

No real evidence of notability, and so badly formatted as to need to be blown up. Search on Moonmoon finds no reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I tried to disambiguate the links in the filmography but found no films with articles in Wikipedia, and hardly any of the directors or leading actors have articles, so the filmography is almost entirely redlinks, indicating a lack of notability. The spelling and grammar of the current article are very poor too. – Fayenatic London 20:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Per nod. Can't seem to find notability for her. Wgolf (talk) 03:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom.Lacks notability. -βα£α(ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most films that the subject allegedly has acted do not have articles on Wikipedia and far from it there are no reliable sources online to back up the information about most of them or even if the movies really exist. $Tushi Talk To Me$ 17:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sunetra (actress)[edit]

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

Article inadequately sourced, and Google on either 'Sunetra Kumar' or 'Rina Sunetra' doesn't come up with reliable sources (only social media). Article is also a mess of redlinks. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above analysis. If anything, the article should be deleted per WP:TNT, as it is a mess (poorly written, poorly formatted and unsourced) and after a cleanup there would remain nothing. --Cavarrone 09:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Per source searches, the subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:NACTOR at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:13, 1 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Bajada[edit]

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

Highly promotional non-notable trainer. Sources do not indicate notability. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable athletic trainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwaiti Classico[edit]

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

A quick internet search reveals nothing more than Wikipedia mirror websites. The article itself is nothing more than a collection of results; refer to WP:NRIVALRY and WP:NOTSTATS. No evidence that WP:GNG is met. Spiderone 12:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why delete it after all this time it has been on Wikipedia and has been updated regularly, it is well known just ask for references and it is well know if researched well it is even listed in the Arabic Wikipedia, this article has been on Wikipedia for years and has been updated regularly and is up to date with its information . . Khalid Sadeq 21:09, 23 October 2016 (KSA)
Delete - no evidence this rivalry is notable and is discussed by reliable sources. Eldumpo (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Eldumpo: I can only see one reliable source. [48] The other sources don't have any prose whatsoever and one of them is the Arabic language Wikipedia which is obviously not reliable. @Khalid sadeq: please delete one of your keep votes; you can't vote twice. Spiderone 07:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of sufficient coverage of the notion of a "rivalry" not just match reporting of individual games, to indicate GNG. One source isn't enough. There may well be additional sourcing in Arabic, but these need to be presented here and translated. Fenix down (talk) 13:41, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Kante4 (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait City Derby[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NRIVALRY. PROD was removed by the author. Spiderone 12:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete - why delete it after all this time it has been on Wikipedia and has been updated regularly, it is well known just ask for references . User:Khalid sadeq21:09, 23 October 2016 (KSA)

@Khalid sadeq: then please provide some reliable references. The fact that it has been here a long time is not a reason to keep it if it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards. I've searched it under its multiple names and can't find any evidence. Admittedly, this might just be because there are no English language sources for this rivalry. Spiderone 07:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of sufficient coverage of the notion of a "rivalry" not just match reporting of individual games, to indicate GNG. Fenix down (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence this is notable and warrants an article. Eldumpo (talk) 18:53, 24 October 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) 16:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clásico Yoreño[edit]

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

The two teams have only met each other twice in professional football. I'm assuming that they are geographically near each other but, still, this doesn't mean that an article is required. I can't see how WP:NRIVALRY can possibly be met. Spiderone 11:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to C.D. Social Sol JohnTombs48 (talk) 19:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NRIVALRY, no evidence of sufficient coverage of the notion of a "rivalry" not just match reporting of individual games, to indicate GNG. Redirect comment above obviously nonsensical, why would you direct to one team, not the other. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Eldumpo (talk) 21:57, 25 October 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) Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 12:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fates Forever[edit]

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

This is a discontinued mobile game that's only claim to nobility is being made by the people behind Discord. Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 01:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability is not temporary but we have infomation on defunct games while they still have coverage in RS. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I'm been doing} 02:27, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited, and reliable sources are lacking in depth. The release or existence of this game did not get acclaim for being "the first MOBA designed exclusively for tablets" either. It looks like this was just another generic app game without lasting impact on the video game culture. WP:GNG, WP:INDEPTH. Ceosad (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are at least three review sources in the MetaCritic link that are reliable (Pocket Gamer, Touch Arcade, IGN) that can be used to build out the notability. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reviews from IGN, GameZebo, Pocket Gamer, TouchArcade (WP:VG/RS) → sufficient for significant coverage. czar 06:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Three obligatory reviews from a 3 month period in 2014 and nothing else material. This seems more like linkspam.--Rpclod (talk) 12:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the sources came within the first few months of release as no bearing on whether or not the subject meets the notability requirements. It doesn't matter when, it just matters that it exists. Furthermore, I have no idea how you find it to be linkspam. People provided third party reliable sources (per consensus from a Wikiproject) that dedicate entire article's to the subject. That's like textbook "How to save an article." on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the dedicated third party sources provided above, which have consensus for being reliable/usable per WP:VG/S. With them, its meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently it received enough coverage/reviews for a claim of notability. Being reviewed in the first months of release sounds pretty normal to be, I would be surprised otherwise. Cavarrone 09:47, 31 October 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. Cavarrone 09:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Rieder[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. I did not want to AFD this article so soon after this young man's tragic death but as another established editor removed the notability tag without making any significant changes or convincingly proving the case, I had no choice. Quis separabit? 02:56, 15 October 2016 (UTC) Comment[reply]

Keep - Just the X games stuff makes him notable, as well there are his film appearances and widely seen modeling work-- That is quite a guilt trip to lay down, there is intense media coverage of his death and videos of the modeling shoots have in the vicinity of 1,000,000 views-- So it is not my fault you put a tag there , you nominated it, I did not. The tag could have been put back on and not being considered for deletion. Not being considered notable on wikipedia could never be as tragic as loosing your life in the way he did. I find you usually to be very kind but that summation seems to me to be unfair.Masterknighted (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not going to get into an edit war. There are few notable skateboarders I can think of, besides Tony Hawk/Tony Hawke, so we may as well come to a conclusion. You could have left the notability tag, as well. Quis separabit? 12:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So there it is you are prejudiced against the case to be made as per the notability of prominent skateboard athletes. And that doesn't make any sense because at the 2020 Summer Olympic Games in Tokyo, skateboarding premieres as an Olympic sport - Skateboarding at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Masterknighted (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as skateboarding goes, Rieder was for sure notable. He's got numerous parts in huge videos and won major competitions, modeling aside. In my opinion this would be the same as deleting a 1980s pro-NFL quarterback who won a superbowl due to non-notability in the present. There's plenty of external sources on Rieder (google news results in 740 articles currently) so I vote keep. Brandoid (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dylan Rieder may have died relatively young but his career as a skater has spanned over a decade, with many video parts for important and certainly notable companies. Additionally, while he is certainly not as notable as skating greats such as Hawk or Koston, a simple google trends search shows that over the past 6 years Rieder has consistently been referenced more or as often then other notable skaters that have pages already. some examples are Mike Carroll, Rick Howard, and Torey Pudwill. Rieder has also won awards that etablish him as someone who will be remembered in the industry for his talent and what he achieved with it. His Transworld video part of the year award is a good example of this. This is an award given by a magazine. A print magazine that has been in publication for 33 years. That qualifies as mainstream media.

Delete - I agree that he is not notable. X Games may, or may not, fulfill required notability for a sportsperson, but however the notability cannot be established without references that are not trivial or passing mentions. A lot of the death news are just passing mentions too. I have an impression that Rieder was mostly known in social media rather than in the mainstream media. He is not notable simply because Ozzy Osbourne, Lil Wayne or other high profile individuals have tweeted about his death. Notability is not inherited. His modeling work does not make him notable, nor does the fact that he worked as an actor. WP:SPORTCRIT, WP:NMODEL. Ceosad (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're not the arbiter of what makes someone notable, therefore your opinion doesn't matter here. Dylan Rieder having a page here already is proof of his notability; otherwise why would you have come here? Your argument is self-defeating and pointless, and your ignorance about topics such as Dylan Rieder are the best reason to keep this article. Also, if you take a look at this page, you're already outvoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.49.202.129 (talk) 09:47, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Multiple mainstream sources mentioned in other comments and votes indicate notability. MordeKyle (talk) 22:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - His wiki page has 114,000 visits in one day, I hardly think that constitutes some one who is not notable. 16:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)Masterknighted (talk) Comment - is CNN notable ? [49] or People [50] GQ [51]. Masterknighted (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I also agree he is notable. I just read a lot about Dylan Rieder, the news about his death and as a Professional Skateboarder and Fashion Model. The stuff about his life and accomplishments in the mainstream seem to make the decision to keep his wiki page a no brainier and MANY people seem to view his info on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.228.78.0 (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG. plenty of good sourcing. simply because a person dies does not make him non-notable. BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion Dylan Rieder got a massive influence how skateboarding has changed including the tricks, the style of the tricks and even how skaters dress now. That he hadn´t competed in the important big competition doesn´t make him less influencing for skateboarding.

The article was written way before his death, when nobody knew about the illness.

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. Consider future redirection to TV series for playing lead role. czar 00:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arnav (TV actor)[edit]

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

Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. None of the sources confirm his past work. Article also had mention about "awards" that were not backed by any citations - I have deleted the section. Article appears to be promotional and the sources are not reliable. I translated the Tamil source pages to verify the serials he claimed to have worked in, and nothing credible came up apart from passing mentions. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 10:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient claim to notability as an actor for this encyclopaedia. Quis separabit? 15:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For whoever may be interested — cited source Dinamalar is a reliable source. While subject apparently fails WP:NACTOR, it could possibly be a candidate for inclusion per WP:GNG. I do not how to read/write Tamil language, but I can read english-urls and see the length of articles in here, [52], [53], [54].

All prominent regional languages should be given equal weight in relation to English. In fact, there are only 2 English-language newspapers in top-10 largest by circulation in India. Anup [Talk] 11:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:05, 23 October 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 Kūdō. Sandstein 23:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Azuma[edit]

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

to be clear, I do _not_ want this article deleted, it is my article, but the BLP prod clock was running down, so this is the only way to get larger community input. There are 53,000+ Google hits for this name+karate, in English, Russian, German, Italian and some Indian languages, but many are industry publications, mirrors of the wiki article in other languages and so on. I am certain that good references must be out there, but have no idea where to look further. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 10:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These sources confirm that the subject founded this martial art. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@86.17.222.157: Thanks, but are those sources reliable?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are from Terra Chile and El País of Colombia, which both seem to be reputable media outlets. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you needed to do was insert one RS that backed up one statement for that BLP Prod to go away - but now there is a larger issue. Is he notable enough for a larger article. In my opinion he is mentioned enough in the article on the art he founded and does not require his own article. The Kūdō article has similar problems - the sources are primary - and does not show notability in the wiki way.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse:Problem is I went looking, and everything I found, as I said, was a non-RS. This will settle all those issues, one way or another, and unlike Trump, I will accept the outcome. ;) --Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Look at criteria for athletic notability. While the subject is interesting, I question whether it could meet the notability requirement.--Rpclod (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in WP:MANOTE is more applicable.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kūdō. The references above are more about the art rather than the subject. It would be a good thing if the above references were included in the Kūdō article since that one is at risk of being deleted for lack of asserted notability also.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kūdō, as above. I agree that the available reliable sources seem to be about the art rather than about Takashi Azuma. Merging will keep the history intact so if anyone can find better sources in the future an independent article can be recreated. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:44, 24 October 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) 16:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margo Alexander[edit]

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

Apparently-promotional article created as part of a batch of Haas-related articles (most of which have since been PRODed or AFDed). Low-quality referencing, questionable WP:GNG notability. Has been involved with possibly-noteworthy organisations, but I can't turn up much in the way of detail about her or how she passes notability. note: when searching for refs, do not confuse with the artist Margo Alexander (1894-1965). David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 10:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable head of a non-profit organization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as what's listed is not at all in fact substantiating her own independent notability and convincing, since it simply lists other named mentions of people or groups, along with named source mentions for this, none of that is actually convincing and can in fact lead to advertising if blatant. SwisterTwister talk 02:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:44, 27 October 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. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Girls BW[edit]

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

Non-notable girls' club from Botswana. Yintan 10:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A quick google search turns up some potential sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:45, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist to assess the sources mentioned by Dr. Blofeld. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 23 October 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. Uncontested. Also entirely unsourced... Sandstein 11:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rarefication (guitars)[edit]

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

I'm honestly not sure if this term is a NEOLOGISM or what. I cannot find anything other than one guitar manufacturer (which, incidentally, has a draft created by the same user) that uses this term. And it's not even a misspelling; it's spelled this way in multiple places relating to the company. Primefac (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Roberts[edit]

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

Weather presenter who is not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable local weather presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just doesn't seem to be notable. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a local weatherman does not necessarily make one notable. Absent reliable sources suggesting otherwise, deletion is the best option here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Riva-Melissa Tez[edit]

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

article is self-promotion and the sources in no way meet the reliability standards for Biographies of Living Persons Uakari (talk) 02:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it stands I just went through every reference, they're almost all bad - self-sourced, promotional, directories, personal biography entries the subject would have written, etc. Main reference is a blog post of an interview, excerpted from a forthcoming self-published book; second is a couple of interviews in a "lifestyle" freesheet. I'm finding pretty much nothing outside the transhumanist subculture, and not a huge amount inside - she writes and advocates a lot, but pretty much nobody writes about her. I'm willing to be convinced, but none of this does - David Gerard (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 October 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possible sources: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. --Fixuture (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- TechCrunch is an internal promotional piece on a TC conference, not an RS; Psychology Today is an op-ed promotional piece by Zoltan Istvan. Both are already in the article, duly tagged with their problems. Of the others, Huffington Post is another Istvan promotional blog that literally says "blog" at the top. Upstart piece is on BizJournals, who are a notorious source of sponsored content and not considered an RS for notability purposes, and is in the article (and duly tagged). Medium piece is a blog post, promoting a nonnotable book (and is in the article and is duly tagged). None of this seems to pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for all the reasons already mentioned, in case there was any doubt!)Uakari (talk) 06:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not reliable. Huffpost is a contributor article, Bizjournals are notorious for publishing redressed press releases, Techcrunch is churnalism and a routine bio lifted from somewhere (the source is redressed PR with stuff like Eligible daytime conference ticket holders will receive an invite to upgrade their ticket to include this. Email TheEuropas@gmail.com for details., Psychology today is by the same contributor of the Huffpost blog who seems to have an interest in promoting their book. Medium is an WP:SPS. No solid secondary sources in any reliable media. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:14, 1 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 and redirect to Himalayan tahr. Cavarrone 09:38, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shapi[edit]

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

I can't find any sources that clearly describe this as a recognized subspecies. Sources currently in the article are either dead, uninformative or seem unreliable; anything else I have been able to find falls into the latter category (eg. [60]). Note that the IUCN currently does not recognize any ssp of the Himalayan tahr at all [61]. I don't think it can even be merged into Himalayan tahr, given this lack of documentation. Do by all means prove me wrong :) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge A Google Scholar search turns up several credible sources that indicate Hemitragus jemlahicus schaeferi used to be an accepted subspecies of Himalayan tahr, thus it is significant as part of the history of the taxonomy of the species. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. All right - most of these are the "doubtful" ones I noted, but this source [62], which I seem to have missed on my trawl, seems to have the missing detail: "Pohle, H. 1944. Hemitragus jemlahicus schaeferi sp. n., die ostliche Form des Thars. Zool. Anz., 144(9/10): 184-91." Clearly not recognized any more but that is a legit description. Fair enough. - Gonna leave this up for a week or so and then merge as a "previously recognized subspecies" note in Himalayan tahr unless there are objections.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Meatsgains (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dad bods[edit]

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

WP:NOTADICTIONARY Meatsgains (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moved article to Dad bod as it had been clearly mistitled before, with even the article's lead sentence referring to a singular "dad bod". Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the sources are of dubious merit. I'm not going to wade into the sea of fashion-mags right now to discern which might be deemed reliable. The main article at Slate can only be dubiously considered independent reporting, since it is packaged into an interview with the coiner of the neologism. But, with that said, there are still a lot of sources out there, some of which--such as this Springer-published book and (for what it's worth) even The Daily Show--have discussed wider cultural impacts of the idea, including its arguably inherent sexism. I don't have access to this one, but there's even apparently a brief mention of the sexist double-standard in this peer-reviewed journal paper. At the very least, I'm confident in saying that there's more than DICDEF-level sourcing available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-known topic, and easy to fix stub. Bearian (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2016 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, I have a dad bod. Bearian (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep odd as this is, it seems to have plenty of coverage in RS. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:42, 23 October 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. Seems like the claims of notability are sufficiently well-supported by sources that they preclude deletion. A merger can be discussed on the talk page; it didn't gain consensus here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Derby[edit]

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

Aside from the unencyclopaedic nature of the article, it makes claims that are not in the single citation given. This rivalry may well exist but I can't find any evidence to support this. Even if it does exist, I'm not sure that it meets the guidelines set out by WP:NRIVALRY. Spiderone 09:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note - This article has been tagged as failing the notability criteria for almost a year. Spiderone 09:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence subject is notable, listed reference appears to be possibly unsafe/spam source. Eldumpo (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - revised view, based on sources provided. The Dhaka Tribune and observerbd sources appear to confer some notability, albeit they are saying the Derby was bigger in the past. The cricket references are minor and I feel cricket is best removed from the article. Eldumpo (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Can be found in reliable sources including four news organizations including ESPN.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Dhaka derby: Lost euphoria, frayed flags | Dhaka Tribune". archive.dhakatribune.com. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
^ "Dhaka Derby today". www.observerbd.com. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
^ "Season's first Dhaka Derby today | Dhaka Tribune". Dhaka Tribune. 21 September 2016. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
^ "Shamshur makes case for Bangladesh squad". Cricinfo. Retrieved 15 October 2016.
^ "Razzak puts Khulna in command". The Daily Star. 28 September 2016. Retrieved 15 October 2016.

This proves that the rivalry exists but not quite that it's notable. Also, these sources are discussing two different supposed rivalries; some mention cricket and others mention football. Spiderone 11:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - Alternatively, the information could be merged into the articles of the two relevant clubs. I can't see why, in any case, this would warrant a stand alone article. Spiderone 11:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.Seasider91 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clear GNG satisfying WP:NRIVALRY for the football derby as noted by the first three sources, all of which discuss the rivalry as a notion (rather than a specific match). All three of these sources come from major Bangladeshi news outlets; either a national newspaper or a major news publication from the capital city.

Further to the sources presented above, I would also note the following English-language sources which discuss the rivalry as a notion rather than simply the name of a game:

Dhaka Tribune - brief article positioning the derby as key game between arch rivals
Financial Express - article providing historical context and longevity of the derby

Agree there is some confusion with cricket in the second two which have nothing to do with this article, but the claims above of "no evidence of notability", particularly the second one posted after these sources are demonstrably wrong. Perhaps @GiantSnowman: and @Eldumpo: might review the first three sources presented if they have not already done so. It would also be useful for @Spiderone: to outline what more he needs beyond three significant dedicated articles on the rivalry and its history. Fenix down (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fenix down: I'm starting to feel that outright deletion might be harsh. I still don't see why this article needs to exist, though. Would it not make more sense to merge any relevant content into the articles of the two clubs? Even with the sources being incorporated, it would still likely be a stub and a small stub at that. Spiderone 18:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the three sources in English noted above would allow for prose of sufficient length that it would cause imbalance in the club article. I think Hack's point below is especially valid, there is strong indications of GNG before we even begin to look at local language sources. To be honest, I would not be surprised to see that there would be enough that Dhaka Derby would become a dab, with separate articles on Dhaka Derby (football) and Dhaka Derby (cricket). Fenix down (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a quick look at some English-language sources suggests this used to be a pretty big deal. It may be worth getting someone who can speak Bengali to have a deeper look for sources. Hack (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 22:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Man with Loy[edit]

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

Non-notable painting. KDS4444 (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete - I could not find any sources that discuss a painting by this name. @Francis1717: is this painting known by a different title, or perhaps by its Spanish title? I do hope that you will continue to contribute to other articles about art and artists here on Wikipedia, but all articles have to pass basic notability guidelines (see WP:GNG) and all statements need to be substantiated by citations to reliable sources (see WP:V). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David De Silva/ Father Fame[edit]

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

This article is heavily promotional, and could probably have been tagged with G11, but I myself was surprised that Mr. de Silva has no article nor has one ever been written on him and subsequently deleted. If kept, this article needs to be moved to David de Silva and away from its current location. And it needs desperately to be completely rewritten if it is to be salvaged at all. KDS4444 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional article on a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 08:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shoppingpak[edit]

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

Delete and Salt please as this has been deleted twice as A7 and this is basically what this current article is, along with G11, and there's absolutely nothing to suggest actual notability and substance with my own searches unsurprisingly finding anything. The blatant persistence shows this is clearly motivated PR advertising and there's presumably other secretive company-involved things than meets the eye (one is that it's the same account involved each and every time). SwisterTwister talk 06:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An unreferenced WP:SPA article on a web firm launched in 2016. My searches are finding no coverage other than the usual social media, and it has an Alexa rating beyond 4 millionth. Do we really need a full AfD to progress to salting a repeating CSD candidate? Anyway, fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:NWEB, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7, and salt. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:17, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Source searches are providing no significant coverage in reliable sources at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources provided by SomeoneNamedDerek have shown notability and the nominator supports keeping, with no additional delete comments after that. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dano Cerny[edit]

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

The links on the page are to music videos and contain no biographical information about the subject person XyzSpaniel Talk Page 13:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music video director. The music videos themsevles are primary sources, we need secondary sources.
Delete: Article not organized, nonconstructive article published to main space.This article needs construct.--Historical Ben (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC) WP:SOCK vote struck ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Historical Ben: An article being needing general cleanup is not always a particularly strong rationale for deletion, although such rationale can apply at times. Of note is that the article was cleaned-up and organized after being nominated for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the article needs a lot of improvement, Cerny is a notable music video director and has worked with popular artists such as those listed on the article so far. A Google search produces 335 results, but many of these results are from reliable sources, including Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, and Stereogum, among others. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep Now that the article has been considerably improved and referenced by SomeoneNamedDerek XyzSpaniel Talk Page 10:03, 26 October 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) 16:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Serene Assaad[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, lady with a job The Banner talk 19:11, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Advertisement. JohnTombs48 (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable person and WP isn't FB. Yintan 11:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm sure she's a lovely person, but unfortunately she doesn't meet the notability requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 07:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastvideo[edit]

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

I find no independent sources (verbatim search fastvideo) covering this, nothing meeting WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I checked Google Scholar and can't find anything substantial there either; most of it seems to be referring to a Fastvideo camera rather than software, which this company creates. Largoplazo (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent WP:RS references. Refs provided are not reliable sources, as they are company-related sources; conference presentations by developers of the underlying technology aren’t independent. Article was created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotions and promotions alone. Light2021 (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DEL7. There aren't enough reliable sources to verify the information and I am not convinced about the notability of the company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 27 October 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 William W. Johnstone. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Gunfighter[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Suggest merger with William W. Johnstone which is largely a bibliography. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Bearian (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the Johnstone article. A paragraph or two about the series would be good there. White Arabian Filly ^Neigh 21:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wood (rapper)[edit]

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

Delete. Minimally sourced biography of a musician who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC for anything and nowhere near enough reliable sourcing to pass WP:GNG. Of the three sources here, one is an unreliable fansite and one is a user-generated discussion forum, thus leaving only an AllMusic bio for valid referencing -- but inclusion in AllMusic is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion pass if AllMusic itself is the only valid source, because it's a database that tries to include every musician who ever existed at all. Our inclusion rules, on the other hand, do not extend automatic notability to every musician who ever existed -- we require certain specific markers of achievement to be attained, and certain specific levels of media coverage to be garnered, before an article on here becomes appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:14, 26 October 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. Largely discounting the arguments before the presentation of Cunard's sources, there's a clear consensus to keep, but also some feeling that the article could benefit from copy editing and pruning of detail.

Also, after surviving seven AfDs over the span of 10 years, I would suggest that there's unambiguous, long-standing, and well-established consensus that this is not going to get deleted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PBS logos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/PBS logos

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

It's just cruft. Survived AFD six (!) times. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a Wikia site devoted to logospotting was created sometime in between the last AFD nomination and this one, so we don't need this anymore. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you really think it should be deleted badly?? I support that we should move this project to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS logos (7th nomination) to make it clear that this is a repeated Afd nomination even under a new name. Georgia guy (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:43, 1 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) 23:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft. Trivialist (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Article is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.117.45 (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Above IP also deleted TheGGoose's comment, and tried to vote an additional four times: [63][64][65][66] Trivialist (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An AfD proposal based on bare assertion of "cruft", in the face of extensive sourcing and repeated discussions, is basically equivalent to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas, who sadly seems no longer to be active on Wikipedia, made a clear case for this subject's notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (3rd nomination) (see also Black Falcon's comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (2nd nomination)), and I have not seen anything in subsequent discussions that changes that. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it's nonencyclopedic, largely OR, and does not have enough sourcing given its length. Trivialist (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the fancruft and OR reasons. I don't see the point to mention such potentially unsourced facts as ten versions of the "seventh logo." Also, is there sufficient significance and notability for each version of the tv idents other than exposure to the public? TheGGoose (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', Don't delete the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.117.45 (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Delete Kill it; OR and FANCRUFT. This can be summed up in one-two paragraphs in the PBS article easily; there's been two actual logos and a literal WP:WHOCARES 'it was spelled out in text because PBS didn't get a graphic machine' line. Leave it to Logopedia in their copyvio glory. Nate • (chatter) 20:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Long ago, this article was nominated for Afd 6 times, and it survived them all. I don't think it will survive this Afd. I strongly support that if it doesn't, there should be information just after the sentence "The result of the debate was delete" that explains differences between now and long ago. Georgia guy (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fancruft and also insufficiently covered in third-party reliable sources to sustain an article. Sandstein 09:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed as "Delete on he basis of consensus of policy-based comments." Cunard requested I reconsider, and I think it would help to have another opportunity to have a proper discussion. I may have been over-influenced by the negative effect of some of the more useless keep comments, I'll just strike them out. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for relisting this AfD after my request on your talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made a mistake there. You should have told Cunard to go to DRV. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wolf, Ron (1984-04-02). "PBS Decides to Give Its Logo a Facelift". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  In an attempt to forge a stronger identity for public television, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is replacing its familiar blue, orange and green logo with a new graphic trademark.
  ...
  The existing PBS logo, though well-established, often is the target of revealing jokes among public broadcasters. Sharon Percy Rockefeller, chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, described it as "a person looking backward, with a hole in his head, followed by BS."
  ...
  The old logo was created by the late Herb Lubalin, widely honored as the foremost graphic designer of his time. The new trademark, which cost PBS $35,000 plus materials, retains the strongest visual element of Lubalin's work - the stylized "P" crafted into a profile of a TV viewer.
  In the redesigned version, "Everyman" is turned to the right, the other two initials have been eliminated and silhouettes of two additional viewers have been added.
2. Carmody, John (1992-12-31). "PBS Logo Takes on a New Look". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Coming to a PBS station near you - perhaps as soon as the presidential inauguration - a brand-new PBS logo, the network`s first such on-air change in four years.
  Because the network`s new "signature" will be attached only to new PBS- distributed programs, viewers may not get a glimpse of it until late March at the earliest or no later than May 1 - unless the network chooses to introduce the logo for upcoming live programs like the inauguration or important Senate confirmation hearings next month, as seems likely.
  However, local versions of the revised signature, distributed by PBS on Monday, could be available by sometime next week if stations choose to adopt them.
  Viewers will recognize the "P-head," which has survived the latest brainstorming, but the "orange, peach and blue" of the revised logo will take a little getting used to.
  A total of eight faces quickly recede into the P-head`s eye, although at first glance only three or maybe four can be picked out in the rapid computer-generated animation.
  ...
  The logo was designed and produced by Telezign of New York with the 35mm film elements shot by Fly Films; the musical signature was composed by Peter Fish of National Sound.
3. "PBS Logo To Be Licensed For Educational Products". Ledger-Enquirer. Associated Press. 1995-05-01. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  The PBS logo, long familiar on the nation's TV screens, will soon be cropping up on toys and books.
  Under an agreement announced last Thursday with United Media Licensing, the P-Man design and other Public Broadcasting Service trademarks will adorn selected children's products as soon as next year.
  Those trademarks include the P-Pal characters, variations on the P logo that resemble kids and are seen during on-air breaks in PBS children's programming.
  ...
  PBS has already joined in entrepreneurial ventures with MCI Communications, to make PBS programming and related products available on CD-ROM and through on-line computer services, and with Turner Home Entertainment to sell home videos of PBS programs.
  ...
  The two-year agreement with United Media, perhaps best-known for licensing the Peanuts characters, covers the use of the PBS brand name and trademarks on products such as computer software, educational and developmental toys, CD-ROMs, games and books.
4. Wisehart, Bob (1993-01-11). "Ken Burns Helps PBS Keep Its Plate Full". Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Pity poor PBS.
  There were protesters at the doorway, much of what it does is criticized for being as bland as congealed oatmeal, its begathons don't bring in the money of old and with its affiliated stations grubbing for every dime, it was not exactly the ideal time for PBS to spend $156,800 on that most vital of possessions. . . a new logo.
  ...
  And that logo?
  With the rotten economy, many public TV stations across the country have been forced to let people go, including KVIE (Channel 6) in Sacramento. Naturally PBS decides to spend $156,800 on a new "P," the first such change since 1989.
  Four years? How did they ever hold out for so long?
  The logo "was updated to create a "signature' look for public television, reflecting the warmth, humanity and the "public' in public television."
  There's also a "P" in "phooey" and they can have that one for free.
5. Stevens, Gus (1984-06-14). "PBS provides solid lineup with increased U.S. funds". Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  Public broadcasting, as part of a new look it is inviting viewers to come to know, even has a new logo. Remember the little man, the "P" in PBS? He has one eye which looks to the left. In the fall he will look to the right, become a triple image and the "BS" will be dropped.
  Hardly a reason to watch PBS, but it does show that public broadcasting isn't so stuffy and tradition-bound that it can't change. Even Robert MacNeil, the PBS newsman who delivers laughs about as often as a hearse, joked about the new logo.
  "B and S will not be renewed this fall," MacNeil said, not cracking a smile, his voice as crisp as dry leaves, just as it is on the nightly "MacNeil-Lehrer Report."
  "It has been rumored that the commercial networks may be trying to lure B and S away from public television. B and S are always in great demand."
6. Apel, D. Scott (1994-08-19). "A Comedy of Morals Clumsy Clergy, Itchy Rented Tuxedos, Ugly Bridesmaid Dresses -- Sometimes Weddings Are No Fun for Anyone. Except the Guests". San Jose Mercury News. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  CIVIL WARS: Ken Burns' popular documentary "The Civil War" has been re- released on video by Turner Home Entertainment, under the PBS Home Video logo. The title was formerly available on the Pacific Arts Video label, but last April, Pacific Arts quit the home video business -- and they blame PBS for their departure.
  "It was not possible to operate the company based on the escalating demands of PBS," Ward Sylvester, president of Pacific Arts' parent company, Nesmith Enterprises, told Video Store Magazine. Sylvester noted that PBS required Pacific Arts to provide marketing support, advance fees for producers, a 6 percent fee for use of its logo, and a 25 percent royalty to producers -- putting "quite a burden" on videos priced to sell. Approximately 80 percent of Pacific Arts titles carried the PBS logo, although most were licensed from individual producers.
  PBS in turn charged that Pacific Arts did not honor these terms. "It was uneconomic for us because they did not pay us or the producers," the article quotes Eric Sass, senior vice-president of home-video marketing for PBS. As a result, PBS terminated the relationship -- and Pacific Arts closed up shop.
7. Johnson, Peter (1994-01-04). "Charlie Rose's talk show airs nationwide on PBS". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Finally, PBS stations across the country get a new on-air logo and five- second animation package today - the first since 1989 and only the fourth in PBS' history, so check it out. The logo was updated to create a "signature" look for PBS - and reflect the "P for public" in public television. And, if you think you recognize the voice in the "this is PBS" voice-over, you may. It's one Chris Murney, a New York actor who did the voice of Elijah Hunt Rhodes in the acclaimed PBS series, The Civil War.
8. "PBS announces two new programs, logo". The Dallas Morning News. 1999-06-10. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  PBS also announced a new logo and two new programs for the upcoming 1999-2000 television season. Dragon Tales, a series based on a brother and sister's adventures with young dragons in a place called Dragon Land, is expected to debut in September. Between the Lions, scheduled for April, involves a family of lions that runs a library where books are brought to life.
  Accompanying these and all other PBS efforts aimed at children will be a green, circular logo, depicting a wide-eyed child with a cartoon-style "thought bubble" overhead.
9. Wozniak, Lara (1995-04-30). "The PBS seal of approval". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  The PBS logo, long familiar on the nation's TV screens, will soon be cropping up on toys and books.
  Under an agreement with United Media Licensing, the "P-Man" design and other Public Broadcasting Service trademarks will adorn selected children's products as soon as next year.
  "We are determined to extend the reach, the value and the power of our brand name," said PBS President Ervin S. Duggan. ""We want the PBS logo to have the power of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."
  Duggan said PBS logos will be licensed only to products consistent with the network's educational and programing standards. An advisory board, yet to be appointed, will oversee licensing activities.
  Revenues will be reinvested in PBS' children's programing and educational services, he said.
10. "Wednesday TV 'Rehearsal for Murder' stars Preston, Redgrave". The Index-Journal. 1982-05-26. p. 5. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes:
  
  8-8:30 (SCETV) Media Probes — Bill Blass hosts this program on "Design," in which viewers are reminded that virtually every object in man-made environment has been fashioned not only to serve a function but also to carry a message. An animated sequence traces the evolution of the PBS logo, designed by Herb Lubalin.
11. Eastman, Susan Tyler; Ferguson, Douglas A.; Klein, Robert, eds. (2013) [2006]. Media Promotion & Marketing for Broadcasting, Cable & the Internet (5 ed.). Burlington, Massachusetts: Taylor & Francis. p. 256. ISBN 1136024816. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Co-Branding Strategies
  The PBS brand became Rotenberg's mantle. Research showed that the PBS brand was exceptionally strong, and that most viewers identified their local public television stations with PBS. Stations, however, were not uniformly taking advantage of associating with the PBS brand. Indeed, a few stations, particularly the large producing stations, saw their own brands as stronger than the PBS brand. Many did not consistently use the PBS logo on the air or on any of their materials. Some stations took the spots PBS fed and replaced the PBS logo with their own station logos on the end frame.
  Furthermore, surveys showed that cable niche services competing with publi television had so completely branded themselves that PBS viewers were confused and actually thought that some PBS programs aired on a cable competitor. To reduce the likelihood of such confusion, PBS began following the industry practice of playing its translucent PBS logo bug on most programs.
  At the same time, PBS began an aggressive campaign to encourage stations to co-brand by placing the PBS "P-head" logo alongside their own station logos in stations IDs, prime-time spots, kids' spots, pledge spots, and positioning spots, as well as in print, signage, websites, educational materials, special events, and all station efforts. Extensive use of the co-branding concept was encouraged in virtually all promotional materials, and by mid-decade PBS had persuaded most stations to adopt a co-branded bug to air on their programs (a bug combining the local and PBS-head logos). PBS now distributes various options for co-branding to stations, including several samples of how to combine the two logos, leaving it to stations to select the most suitable one for them. (Using the PBS logo alone as a bug is limited to PBS-distributed programs and materials.) A handful of stations have even changed their names to incorporate the PBS brand; for instance to PBS Hawaii, Rocky Mountain PBS, and as shown in the logos in 9.6 to Mountain PBS and Rhode Island PBS.
12. Lieberman, Al; Esgate, Pat (2014). The Definitive Guide to Entertainment Marketing: Bringing the Moguls, the Media, and the Magic to the World (2 ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: FT Press. p. 100. ISBN 0133092305. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Branding: The use of an outside creative or advertising agency and the application of a gradually increasing marketing budget. Through the use of press releases, PBS mounted a national branding campaign in the 1990s to reinforce its consistent and educationally entertaining content. PBS logos were consistently positioned beside those of local stations, with taglines such as: "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?"
13. Andersen, Robin; Gray, Jonathan Alan, eds. (2008). Battleground: The Media, Volume 2 (O–Z). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 402. ISBN 0313341672. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The book notes on page 402:
  
  The Public Broadcasting Act was swiftly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson in 1967, and programs carrying the PBS logo began to appear in late 1969. Defined as a "Chance for Better Television," PBS claimed a redemptive cultural identity and cultivated an aesthetic based more on pre-electronic media such as live drama and the printed word than on contemporary TV formats. Because PBS had been created to solve a range of perceived cultural problems without fundamentally altering the economic landscape of commercial television, it could not compete for the hearts and minds of TV viewers and maintain its legitimacy.
  The book notes on page 400:
  The U.S. public broadcasting system comprises hundreds of local stations and several large national bureaucracies. The most recognizable symbol of this labyrinth is PBS, the logo of the Public Broadcasting Service, which appears on all nationally distributed public television programs, designed so that the letters P-B-S vaguely resemble the human brain.
14. "Licensing Deal Signed by PBS". The New York Times. 1995-04-28. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  The Public Broadcasting Service logo, long familiar on the nation's television screens, will soon be cropping up on toys and books.
  Under a two-year agreement announced yesterday with United Media Licensing, which is perhaps best known for licensing the "Peanuts" comic characters, the "P-Man" design and other PBS trademarks will adorn selected children's products as soon as next year.
  "We are determined to extend the reach, the value and the power of our brand name," said Ervin S. Duggan, the president of PBS. "We want the PBS logo to have the power of the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."
15. Carmody, John (1983-12-08). "PBS Chief Grossman Named President Of NBC News". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  [Lawrence K. Grossman, president of the Public Broadcasting Service since 1976], who has had no direct experience in the TV news business, is returning to NBC, which he joined in 1962 after six years at CBS in its advertising department. At NBC, he soon caught the eye of then-NBC president Bob Kintner, rising to the post of vice president in charge of advertising at the network. He left NBC in 1966 to form a successful New York advertising agency.
  (The firm created the current PBS logo seen nightly on the air, one of the less important factors in the PBS board's surprise move to make him head of the public system in 1976).
16. O'Neill, Ann W. (1999-02-03). "Former Monkee Wins $47 Million From PBS Network". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  The Public Broadcasting Service initially sued Nesmith and his defunct Santa Monica-based Pacific Arts Corp. over royalties from the prestigious PBS logo, which Nesmith had licensed as he began to build and distribute a video library of the network's most popular programs.
17. Beale, Lewis (1993-02-15). "PBS' Video Rights Policy Stirs Dispute: Television: Filmmakers worry the network could use it as a condition not just for what programs get funded, as stated, but for which ones get aired". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2016-10-23. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  Distributors of independent documentaries have other objections. Their discontent with the network goes back two years, when PBS refused to allow them to use the PBS logo when promoting work that had aired on public television. Pacific Arts Home Video, which distributes PBS Home Video, has exclusive rights to the logo.
18. Gernsheimer, Jack (2010). Designing Logos: The Process of Creating Symbols That Endure. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 1982. ISBN 1581157517. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The article notes:
  
  1984
  Public Broadcasting System
  The logo for Public Broadcasting System was designed by Chermayeff and Geismar around 1984. Its predecessor used the initials "PBS," with the P resembling a face. The revised logo eliminates initials but retains the head and the suggestion of a P. The enlarged eye suggests that sight is the primary sense impacted by PBS programming. The multiple faces support the idea of service to the public. Like the treatment in the Girl Scouts logo, there is also a suggestion of multiculturalism because of the color change in the center face.
19. Blackwell, Amy Hackney (2010). Television. New York: Infobase Publishing. p. 42. ISBN 1438132077. Retrieved 2016-10-23.
  The book notes:
  
  PBS: Public Broadcasting System, the American nonprofit public television network. It is funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and has its quarters in Arlington, Virginia, and Burbank, California. Its logo is a black circle with stylized human profiles stacked within it.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PBS logos to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (2nd nomination) participants who have been active in the past five years: Tregoweth (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Black Falcon (talk · contribs), Addict 2006 (talk · contribs), Azumanga1 (talk · contribs), and Ryanasaurus0077 (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (3rd nomination) participants: RadioFan (talk · contribs), Viriditas (talk · contribs), Drmies (talk · contribs), and Ronabop (talk · contribs).
Pinging the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (4th nomination) participant who has not commented here: Hasteur (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (5th nomination) participants: TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), Wikidemon (talk · contribs), Anarchangel (talk · contribs), Axem Titanium (talk · contribs), Hairhorn (talk · contribs), Rlendog (talk · contribs), and OrenBochman (talk · contribs).
Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PBS idents (6th nomination) participants: Freshh (talk · contribs), Trivialist (talk · contribs), Squeamish Ossifrage (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some of the sources listed above don't apply to the article all that directly, but 1, 2, 5, and 7 do and are enough to keep this topic. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The main problem is that the current article is mostly descriptions of individual animations of logos, a la Closing Logos and other sites specifically for fans of such things, and doesn't fit in a general-audience encyclopedia. A paragraph or two in the main PBS article mentioning who designed the various versions of the logo would be more than sufficient. Trivialist (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how that's different than [WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] really. Sources indicate that the world has noticed it and it meets our inclusion guidelines. WP:IAR isn't irrational here, but I don't think you are likely to build a strong enough consensus to push IAR over the line. Hobit (talk) 03:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep -- compare with Logo of NBC. This sounds like "other stuff exists" type of argument, but it does not make sense to single out PBS logos for deletion. Perhaps an overall RfC may be appropriate to gauge the consensus regarding this type of articles. I'd say, keep for now but (ideally) prune the article so that the key points do not get lost in the sea of intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really presenting any more arguments beyond the last time I weighed in on this debate (PBS idents 4th nomination). The content needs to be slimmed down (do we really need detailed descriptions of the identification marks/animation/audio?). Keeping in mind Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, I have to ask the nominator and deletion pushers why you aren't making the effort to clean up the article. Hasteur (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Waiting to see if the article survives AFD? Trivialist (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cunard's sources demonstrate that this subject meets WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason for deletion, Might I suggest people stop renominating this - it's staying so give up, Anyway keep. –Davey2010^Talk 00:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The "fancruft" nomination and subsequent arguments for deletion based upon this notion are not guideline-based, (Wikipedia:Fancruft is an essay), and the topic meets WP:GNG, although perhaps on a weaker level. Concerns about original research can be addressed by copy editing the article, rather than deleting it in entirety. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguements are rather weak however regardless consensus is that it's notable and meets gng. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Concrete Herald[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP. Small town newspaper. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in the present stub form, the article doesn't immediately provide absolutely independent sources. However, these sources are already presented in Charles Dwelley article (which you sadly nominated for deletion for a different reason), and I plan to incorporate these sources into the article shortly. In addition, this is not a small town newspaper. It's a newspaper that is published in a small town, but serves half of Skagit County. The newspaper was established in 1901, IMHO sufficiently long ago to second guess a hasty deletion nomination. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an immediate and an easy update to introduce independent sources. I believe I can add even more next week -- I fancy that for the publication with such extensive history, it shouldn't be hard. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sufficient independent and reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Despite being a "small town newspaper", its resurrection was notable enough to be reported by The Seattle Times. clpo13_(talk) 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- reasonable well sourced. In addition, WP:OUTCOMES for comparative AfDs closed as keep if reliable secondary sources are available. Compare to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Domovina (newspaper) where the result was keep. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: seems notable to me. Anup [Talk] 03:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sony Pellissery[edit]

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

Non-Notable Indian academic. Fails WP:Prof Uncletomwood (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites not enough. Nothing else. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is an overly promotional article where the sources do not back up the grandiose claims of altering the political climate of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- an unconvincing vanity page. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing actually convincing for WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete as those who have recommended seems to be unaware of Indian academia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochachan (talk • contribs) 04:58, 30 October 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) 16:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Roberts[edit]

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

Self-promotion page for a fringe theorist with dubious credentials. There doesn't seem to be anything that justifies including this article here, other than the stealing of the Moon rocks bit. — LucasVB | Talk 02:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unnotable fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO & dubious notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not only plagued by fringeness, but by lots of claims that violate BLP rules. He is a person convicted of robbery who has since embraced nutty ideas, nothing here of note.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability as a criminal (needs ongoing coverage in reliable sources), academic (Google scholar shows very few citations to his work), nor as a fringe theorist (would need mainstream reliable sources to put his fringe theories into a properly neutral perspective). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 24 October 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 Decepticon. Michig (talk) 07:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicon[edit]

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

This character subset does not establish independent notability. TTN (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/DAB: Vehicons (with an s) is a redirect to Decepticons. I'd be ok with doing that here too, or turning into a DAB page with links to the shows featuring the faction and/or lists of characters from those shows. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Let this page stay. They are good foot soldiers of the Decepticons that have appeared in different media appearances and have been voiced by various voice actors. We have to put their information somewhere. I don't see their sub-section under the Decepticons' page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Decepticons per Argento Surfer's comment. The information about the Vehicons is located under the "Transformers: Prime" subsection so that is an appropriate site for a redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that the Vehicons also appeared in Beast Machines: Transformers, so they should get their own subsection if it is redirected. --Rtkat3 (talk) 16:36, 27 October 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.