< 23 October	25 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Ralston[edit]

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

Dele6e: as non-notable actor -- only 9 films to his career. Quis separabit? 23:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not even billed in Huckleberry Finn. In the case of Polyanna he may be the male lead, but it is the females who really have the top roles. Beyond this IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not meant to serve as a directory of all people who appeared in Holyywood films, so there is no justification for this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John Pack Lambert's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 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. Sandstein 07:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Million Dollar Girl (TV series)[edit]

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

Show with little notability to be found-this was prodded and deleted before by the way. Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Show lacks coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I know this article needs a lot of improvement but it meets the notability of wikipedia thus this page should be here.Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tupur16: I would suggest either improving the article directly, or providing a list of reliable sources here about the television series to support your argument. Aoba47 (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This soap opera was on-air for only about 3-months. Mid Day reported it as upcoming show on 4-Feb-2015, and Times of India that, it will be closed in Jun-2015. However, the number of episodes are more than a hundred. For coverage is in reliable sources, here is what I was able to find: [1], [2], [3]. As of now, I'm unconvinced that this topic meets GNG. If anyone can find better sources, ping me. Anup [Talk] 18:58, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The number of episode is verified from official source plz check it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tupur16 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tupur16: Be honest and answer, how are you related to this tv show? (See: Why this article is being considered for deletion). Anup [Talk] 21:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Anup I never thought that I need to be related with this show for voicing my opinion. For u r kind information let me tell u that I am not personaly or professinaly related with this show if I was related I never write the article so poorly. In my country channel V is not available and I never saw any episode of this serial. I find the name of serial through Vikram Singh Chauhan's page. I thought a serial can be notable for an article in wikipedia. For that whatever information I found in internet I give it here and leave it for other to improve this article. I have no problem with this article's deletion. Here I am only voicing my opinion as like you nothing else. Please stop personal attack. I think doing personal attack is againt wikipedia's rule. I hope you will never do it again with anyone. Plz be polite to everyone. As far as I can remember you were rude to me during another discussion before. Tupur16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- I suggest redirection for this page as it is not completely unnotable. I think it would be better to redirect the page to Channel V where the serial used to broadcast.Ishi2345 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable television series Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Bahnsen[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. The refs are mostly him appearing on various TV channels giving his opinions. Others include an obituary of his father and directory style listings. The only opinion piece is from "Affluent Christian Investor" which looks anything but independent. Nothing from any reliable sources about what others think of him. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable financial commentator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article sources written by the subject don't help it pass the WP:GNG or WP:BIO. A Train^talk 14:06, 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) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shred Nations[edit]

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

Contested prod (without explanation of why contested); no sign of sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORP David Biddulph (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is unambiguous spam, written by an SPA that almost certainly has an undisclosed COI. I haven't been able to find a single, non-trivial mention of the company in a reliable source. Joe Roe (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not only is this nearly speedy material, but it's also clear advertising from several paths than only one: one is the clear advertising account and its contributions, the next is the overall advertising information and sources and the last one is the fact none of is this anything actually convincing; I'll note this was in fact deleted once before and I'll note any attempts at restarting as advertising again will surely get barred (salt) from said advertising happening again. SwisterTwister talk 02:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm unable to find any independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 01:57, 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. No objections to speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sanitek Armenia[edit]

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

No apparent credible assertion of significance or notability. Listing for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful and informative article. Don't see a necessary to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.142.19.242 (talk) 20:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:38, 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 no consensus. No objections to speedy renomination (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson (band)[edit]

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

Promotional article, mostly puffery. References in RSes mostly passing mentions. No evidence of actually passing WP:NMUSIC. Basic WP:BEFORE (though it's a hard name to search on) turn up nothing better. David Gerard (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Fails WP:BAND. Yintan 13:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Not just because I started it, but also because all it needs is a little touching up to meet the required standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohawkmarcje (talk • contribs) 09:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 ^talk 20:36, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynette Long[edit]

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

I am the creator and administrator of the Lynette Long Wikipedia page. I no longer wish for this page to up. My name is Connor Grill and this page has been requested to be deleted by my person as this was an experimental page and no longer wish for it to be visible. Thank you for your time and I look forward to creating permanent Wikipedia pages in the near future. I appreciate your support on this matter. -Connor Grill, admin of Lynette Long.--Connorgrill (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment commented on user's talk page re WP:OWN, the possibility of Speedy G7, and the malformed AFD nomination. Meters (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added ((afd2)) template. --Finngall ^talk 21:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:32, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- notable as WP:AUTHOR with wide library holdings: link and as WP:ACADEMIC for the "latchkey kids" work. Plenty of sources are available. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep by WP:AUTHOR and WorldCat alone, the nomination is not convincing for the serious case that is deletion. SwisterTwister talk 21:58, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 1, 1995[edit]

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

Unless this is part of some series of articles that I am unaware of, I am note sure that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. Not to mention the article seems to stray quite a bit from the actual subject of the article. For example, "the connected astrological sign for this date is Pisces. A symbol of a fish represents Pisces. The element for Pisces is water.." Needs to either be rewritten to highlight the actual notable events that occurred on this day, or deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 18:43, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anything of note could be added to the March 1 article. The specific date with year however is not notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- is this perhaps a joke article? :-) It opens thusly:

March 1, 1995 was a Wednesday. Bill Clinton was the President of the United States. ^[1] Holidays on this date include Saint David's Day and Self-injury Awareness Day. The connected astrological sign for this date is Pisces.

References

^ "Bill Clinton". 22 October 2016 – via Wikipedia.

K.e.coffman (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this day. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - other than the founding of Yahoo!, nothing really historic happened on this date. Bearian (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are plenty of sources that provide accounts of the events that occurred on any given day of the last 100 or so years, but I am very hesitant to create a precedent where every day in history gets its own encyclopedia article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- Allowing it would create a precedent that we would regret for having a daily article on every day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 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. Overwhelming consensus to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aasaanjobs.com[edit]

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

Recreation of a page recently deleted via WP:PROD. Sources listed include Bloomberg directory listing (which is non RS for notability) and information about funding. Significant RS cannot be found to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Created by Special:Contributions/Prashant32 with no other contributions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Seems like article written by none other than founders themselves (or influenced), It will not be surprise if the founder seeks their own page from sometime now by building this page for their base. Highest degree of non-notable promotional content. From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. References are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company.Light2021 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page to contribute to wikipedia community. I love to write about the growing companies in India. I am following this company from many years now so I thought to create the wiki page to share the information about it. I am new to wikipedia so I request you to help me to understand the things which are missing in the article. I will make the changes as early as possible. I am doing more research about the company which will add value to the readers.Prashant32 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (IST)

Delete and salt as literally a restarted advertisement deleted a sheer 4 days ago and with the same blatant information only existing to advertise the company and its services (the same can be said about the sources, which are notorious "pay-for" websites), certainly none of it becomes substance and nor would it be considering the clear advertising motivations here. SwisterTwister talk 20:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is missing? I would like to share some reference to clear my point. The below pages are created by using similar information. Can you point out what is the difference in the article that written by me and the pages shown below?Prashant32 (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2016 (IST)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naukri.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babajob.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.75.54.254 (talk) 07:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the most important reason, such junk and spam are being created on Wikipedia, based on other successful startup model or copying them the way they are written. You are missing the Notability of the company itself that Naukri.com has no problem with. It is not about how you write an article. This is created only for promotional purposes and nothing else. This is encyclopedia not Blog-Post or PR distribution network Light2021 (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking sufficient non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one I would agree has nothing in-depth out there and the majority of the news is simply funding - nothing in detail about the company, just the funding. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:42, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Loveholidays.com[edit]

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

Almost a A7 not even a claim to significance, except for the titles of some of its press releases. No significant sources DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Meatsgains (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt considering this was literally speedied before as G11, the history here shows the advertising-only accounts which is a given and there's simply nothing else better because of the blatant PR and advertising in both the information and sources. SwisterTwister talk 20:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, the page is just an ad, and my searches didn't turn up any indication that this is more than a run of the mill travel site, so I don't see a substantial likelihood that this could be improved into a real article about a notable subject. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PLUG Nordic Nightfury 11:21, 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 Sabarna Sangrahashala. MBisanz ^talk 22:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

International History and Heritage Exhibition[edit]

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

Non-notable event. While the museum that hosts this event (Sabarna Sangrahashala) is notable, the event itself is not. The majority of sources for this article are about the museum, but do not mention this event. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Anup [Talk] 18:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable event. This article is advertising pretending to be informative. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:12, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, greetings to all. I am an independent research scholar and teacher who have written this article on the annual international history and heritage exhibition that is held in kolkata every year to create awareness about history and heritage of the land. The exhibition has now become an important event and being a free exhibition thousands of students from various schools and colleges apart from foreigners and common history enthusiasts come to gain knowledge. My writing is not publicity of the exhibition but making people aware of such a great benevolent initiative on the part of the sabarna museum, which again is a charitable trust. Money is nowhere related. There is no ticket, nothing only knowledge about our origin, our culture. Governments of Bhutan and Sri Lanka have appreciated the initiative. Also the Dy. Consular General of Bhutan have inaugurated the exhibition in 2015 proving its importance. If anyone wish I may send scanned copies of the letters from these governments, which are on display at the gallery. The seminars, cultural events and quiz are simply great. I can assure everyone that such a museum and the exhibition occurs nowhere in the world and for this reason most of us fail to realize the exhibition's importance. May be my writing on wikipedia is not of the standard, hence i shaLL humbly request the hon'ble editors to rewrite this article with your skill of writing according to wikipedia's guidelines and with the info i have provided and make it available on wikipedia for the benefit of students and people. I have found some more reference and have added them on the article. Please find them. I may also send scanned copies of several newspaper reports of the exhibition if you need them. My wish is that let people know about this extraordinary exhibition of Kolkata. Who writes the article is not the matter. Please let the article remain. Some editor please do Write it according to the guidelines. Thanks. Devrc (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)Sucharita 25.10.2016[reply]

Delete-Nothing convinces me at all that it passes the WP:NOTABILITY factor.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc notes-"My writing is not publicity of the exhibition but making people aware of such a great benevolent initiative on the part of the sabarna museum, which again is a charitable trust. Money is nowhere related."The request for deletion is not at all based on such criterion.Even if it charges exorbitant amounts for entry etc. but has been relayed by several independent, mainstream and strong reliable sources as notable,it shall be in WIKIPEDIA!Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc has also commented--"Governments of Bhutan and Sri Lanka have appreciated the initiative. Also the Dy. Consular General of Bhutan have inaugurated the exhibition in 2015 proving its importance. "In this era of publicity, if one has good links with the bureaucracy, and one's purpose is not dubious,it's not a matter of great pain to churn out such a certificate of appreciation.Further, today we find in WEST BENGAL, everything from pujas to new shopping malls, is inaugurated by a flurry of persons ranging from the Consulate-generals,Chief-Minister and Governor to local counselors and celebs. But we cannot vie for the inclusion of all such articles!.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the inclusion of newspaper reports in the article as citations by Devrc and his reply, here, that he-"may also send scanned copies of several newspaper reports of the exhibition if you need them.", many prominent newspapers in their local sections publish details about art exhibitions,film screenings etc. in the city, but, if we start listing them at WIKIPEDIA, it becomes a perfect synonym for MESS.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Devrc further commented-"I can assure everyone that such a museum and the exhibition occurs nowhere in the world and for this reason most of us fail to realize the exhibition's importance."I am regretful but this looks like a blatant exaggeration.....Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 08:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomoskar, I feel that truly when all the editors are feeling that this article must not be included in wikipedia, I accept their opinion and then should i myself delete the info or it can be made that the page is redirected to the original sabarna sangrahashala page? Kindly guide me. Devrc (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Sucharita 25.10.2016[reply]

@Devrc: Let the AFD discussion run its course. The result may well be to keep the article, or to redirect it to the article about the museum, or to delete the article. The various editors who take the time to contribute to this discussion will decide. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sabarna Sangrahashala which already has a section on this (or plain redirect to that). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 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 Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demetrios Alexatos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Quoting the first AfD nomination by Boleyn: Does not meet WP:GNG or any other part of WP:Notability. The Bronze Wolf award has been given to at least 430 people, and it is clear that he has some significance within the scouting movement, but nothing that I can see makes him clearly notable. It has been claimed that serving on the World Scout Committee and serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree make him notable; however, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that he is notable, WP:NRVE. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Possibly selectively merge to Scouts of Greece § Distinguished members, which already has some content about the subject, and this is also a valid search term. Source searches are not providing enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep-The previous deletion was a bad call by a semi-retired admin who couldn't properly spell inherent and who disregarded Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators when there was no clear outcome, two very good arguments for keep (better one being serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree, which is very rare accomplishment (only 23 people), one "I'm not seeing it" delete and one "me too" delete. Boleyn said "Nothing different to suggest things have changed"-I submit designing the current World Scout Emblem, used by the world's largest youth movement, worn over 40 million participants^[1] Enough notability is in the article to say it's worth looking into deeper. I have written the Scouts of Greece to get more information, it is starting to come in and I am adding it to the article as it comes in. JJMC89, it's nice to finally see your true motives come out after a week of badgering this article.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Who We Are". World Organization of the Scout Movement. Retrieved 14 May 2016.

Keep-I'm thinking Keep, not because of the positions that he held with WOSM, but rather the fact that he held a National level position with Scouts of Greece.Naraht (talk) 02:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've taken a quick look over the article. He is definitely of major significance to the Greek Scout organization. Admittedly that isn't a huge organization (18,000 current members but given the political changes in Greece over the decades numbers could have been much higher in the past when the king was patron). He has also served significant roles within WOSM which is certainly a major international organization (World Jamboree Camp Chief, World Scout Committee for 6 years [the max allowed, if I'm reading things correctly]). However the sources are a bit weak but good ones are likely to be not readily accessible. I would give the editors some time to see what they can find. Ideally they'll gain support from someone who can actively mine the Greek sources. --Erp (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and nothing weak about it, quite a clear case. The majority of the "sources" cited appear to be based on private communications and thus don't even satisfy WP:V; they certainly cannot be used to justify notability. The claims of importance of the subject in Greek Scouting are not convincing, given the fairly small size of that organization and the fact that it is a youth organization. Ultimately, notability in such cases needs to be convincingly demonstrated on general WP:GNG grounds, that is, by detailed in-depth specific coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Such coverage has not been brought to light here. Nsk92 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "sources" as you say are meant to be a stopgap while I research for better material, they are basically markers for saying HOLD ON I AM ON THE PATH OF FINDING STUFF! and would certainly be replaced when I find the reliable documentation that does exist.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Receiving the Bronze Wolf Award is certainly a notable achievement, as fewer than 350 awards (not 430 as claimed in the first AfD) have been presented in the award's 80 year history. Alexatos also lead the Scouts of Greece for 17 years. Yes, the article needs to be cleaned up, but that is not what AfD is for. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 07:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I think keep, for all reasons that have already been stated. As it is, it meets minimum standards and at least one person says it is still a work in process. Give it some time and if after a few months it hasn't established more notability, then merge it into another article.Marauder40 (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Perhaps Alexatos meets WP:ANYBIO per being a recipient of the Bronze Wolf Award. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Thank you for finding that passage, I'd never seen that one before! He actually meets criterion 1 twice, as well as criterion 2!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marauder40. --evrik ^(talk) 17:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alexatos meets WP:ANYBIO and serving as the Camp Chief of a World Scout Jamboree, which is very rare accomplishment (only 23 people) --Egel _Reaction? 10:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any of the reasons mentioned above (Bronze Wolf, Camp Chief of World Scout Jamboree, head of the Scouts of Greece) would lend to notability on their own, but combined it makes it pretty clear cut to me as a case of meeting WP:ANYBIO. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:28, 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) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:05, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kirsten Fehrs[edit]

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

All sources I found (including German ones) are WP:ROUTINE annoucements following her election. I do not think being a bishop confers automatic notability. There might be a case via WP:AUTHOR, but I could not find relevant sources with my competence in German. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unsuccessfully tried to find notability guidelines on religious leaders; only found some on Catholic church leaders. Church positions of different denominations are difficult to compare, but I would say that Kirsten Fehrs' position in one of the large mainstream churches of Germany most certainly is comparable to that of a a diocesan bishop.

I don't know if other language Wikipedias are considered to be an indication of notability, but the German Wikipedia has quite a comprehensive article. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I was surprised there is nothing religion-specific in WP:BIO (well, there is WP:POLITICIAN and WP:ENTERTAINER, I guess). From my experience of other topics, notability rules at de-wk are weaker than on en. I would indeed have expected coverage for a high-ranking clergy member, but found none. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding. :-) The notability rules on de-wk weaker than here? My impression is that it's just the opposite!

But that's beside the point here. You call her a "high-ranking clergy member", and maybe that's the point for notability: She was one of the two highest ranking clergy in the Nordelbische Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche until its merger in 2012, and she now is one of the three bishops of the Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Norddeutschland with Gerhard Ulrich as its head bishop. (BTW, I am surprised that en-wk does not have an article on him yet, him also being the leading bishop of the VELKD.)

Considering that this is a church body with more than 2 million members, it's not like we are talking about some minor insignificant group here. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that in general the German Wikipedia is stricter than the English about what articles can be kept, but their guidelines are qualitatively different, in that they concentrate more on intrinsic importance and we concentrate more on the available sources. Either way this subject is clearly notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A quick look at the many reliable sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the searches automatically provided above shows extensive ongoing coverage of the subject. There's no need to look beyond the general notability guideline here, but in general bishops or the equivalent in major religious denominations usually turn out to be notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Die Welt article is pretty routine, but NDR is a news site and the article about her there is pretty in depth. Here is another one in Hamburger Abendblatt that is also very in depth and independent from the NDR article. So she seems to meet GNG to me. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES. St Anselm (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Diocesan ELC bishop is probably inherently notable per WP:CLERGY, but even if that doesn't work, she appears to pass GNG per the sources noted by Smmurphy. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there ARE notability guidelines for clergy after all! (Can't see why I couldn't find them earlier.)

Well, that pretty much settles it, doesn't it? --84.190.90.147 (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Abendblatt piece found by Smmurphy is a good one, and not immediately following the election. WP:CLERGY notwithstanding, I am not convinced bishops are automatically notable, but this one certainly is. Withdrawing the nomination. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 09:05, 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 speedy delete. obviously non-notable, even if it exists Jimfbleak (talk) 18:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha Music File[edit]

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

No content, no sources. Been tagged for three years with no progress. McDoob AU93 15:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add "no proof of existence". Practically no results in Google searches excluding Wikipedia. So, no notability at least, possibly even nonexistence. --84.190.84.207 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 15:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the Google searches for .AMF2 are copies of this article, or completely unrelated sites. Joseph2302 15:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem worthy of inclusion. Searches via Google gave similar results to the last post. Eagleash (talk) 16:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: no sources, no proof that any files exist with the supposed AMF2 extension, no indication even of the existence of the supposed programming company "cpb0mb". Seems like a hoax to me. Richard3120 (talk) 16:07, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clash with DD[edit]

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

Totally un-notable application. There are no independent sources cited, and searches have not provided anything suitable. (PROD contested by the article's creator, who appears to have a conflict of interest.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article writers point of view

It is very shame to speak up for discussion about some experienced Wikipedia editors have a lot of proudness in them and try to suppress the new editors As I believe that internet does not distinguish between people so must the senior editors must follow the same. Independent sources about articles were added at the time the article was created but same problem editors think themself great and tend to remove it please keep the sanity of Wikipedia so it will really contain information or else we will only find articles of pseudonyms on the Wikipedia space(Tiven gonsalves 16:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiven2240 (talk • contribs)

Please don't take it personally, its just that the article does not meet the standard for a subject having its own article on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Topic lacks coverage from reliable secondary sources. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
VG/RS search shows nothing. Obvious delete. --Izno (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has no sources other than the official site for the app. For that matter, the article doesn't even clearly explain what the app does. (I note, however, that the article creator has disclosed his status as a paid editor on his userpage for several weeks, so he has been in compliance with Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure since then.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the WP:GNG - there doesn't seem to be any third party coverage out there. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to this app it seems. No RS, no coverage at all, this is the textbook definition of not being notable. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no suggestion of notability. Deb (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Delete and Salt (given the past 2 deletions including since they have both happened in this past month) as I in fact planned to nominate myself when I noticed the PROD was boldly contested, this is still entirely advertising and overall unacceptable, none of it convinces actual substance. SwisterTwister talk 03:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie DiMarco[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. Basic WP:BEFORE for me turned up literally two articles actually about her, [4][5], which doesn't quite swing it for me - all other coverage is passing mentions, actually about Advent or share trading information. Perhaps there's more that clearly passes a notability guideline. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as several notes: The history and the sheer long age of this article shows it was in fact only existing for PR advertising, given the fact there were also noticeably focused accounts with this one article, none of it suggests she would in fact be independently notable (especially from the company itself and then there's nothing to suggest anything better since there's also the sheer fact this had been considered for deletion in 2007, so it shows how this was in fact needing deletion (especially now). SwisterTwister talk 17:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:45, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zoompass[edit]

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

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company Light2021 (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant advertising which has literally been kept as is for over 6 years now, none of it actually forms substance and that's not surprising considering that was how articles and contributions were made at the time, especially (considering the worst part) advertising which is as blatant as it comes. My own searches are not actually finding better than PR and republished PR therefore it's non-negotiable. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Cannot find anything to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, from what I did find I am not sure the company still exists. There could be a possibility of merging it with EnStream which once owned it. Probably could have done so under WP:BOLD. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:56, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sleekpay[edit]

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

they should add their brochure instead. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No apparent sources to be found on Google News as the company appears to have gone belly up. I would make a note to the nominator that promotional tone is a reason to clean up an article, not a policy-based argument for deleting one. A Train^talk 14:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I don't even see any assertion of notability here, and zero third-party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one could have probably went WP:A7. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:03, 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 Speedy Deleted after I tagged it (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 16:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RecargaPay[edit]

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

Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:59, 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) 06:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNet TPS[edit]

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

From company Promotional writing of an article to references used for press or news coverage. Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. references are PR exercise of company or clearly influenced by the company the way it is being covered by media. company only mention the Investment news where thousands of company gets seed, angel or any kind of funding on daily basis on each part of the world. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. It will be flooded with thousands of worldwide funding company daily. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company. Light2021 (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt as both the information, sources and history match with advertising and that alone, the fact this was speedy deleted once before and then restarted with this current article, I honestly believe we need to salt lest we have another attempt of advertising. The history particularly shows the obvious several accounts used to advertise and then change them to show "there were multiple people here" when in fact it's all PR advertising, something we take seriously and will not accept at any costs. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage that I could find. Fails WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- product brochure in the form of a Wikipedia article. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:14, 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 redirect to WWE Fastlane. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fastlane (2017)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - but the issue still exists. The event far in the future with no indication of notability. Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017) Peter Rehse (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WWE Fastlane. Sources aren't even considered reliable per WP:PW/RS. WP:TOOSOON, a similar discussion was had at WP:Articles for deletion/Royal Rumble (2017). JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Fastlane. Obviously fails GNG.LM2000 (talk) 18:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggesting keeping it as a redirect until there is some build for the event, presumably after the Royal Rumble.LM2000 (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WWE Fastlane per reasons already discussed above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Fastlane for now. Per above. Nickag989^talk 18:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WWE Fastlane for now. Per above. Donnowin1 (talk) 04:53, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Kadhem al-Rawi[edit]

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

Per request from OTRS 2016092810006075 motivated by a belief that the allegation of association with an organization associated with terrorism creates a potential safety issue for the subject and family S Philbrick (Talk) 11:53, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article that lacks sources to establish claims. Especially these types of claims should not be left intact on a living person when we lack sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An allegation of association with a terrorist organization is not, in and of itself, a basis for a standalone WP:BLP — but that's really the only notability claim being made here at all. We have a rule on here that we have to be especially vigilant about information that could be libellous if proven false — and if you took every sentence out of the article that's fundamentally about tying him to the Muslim Brotherhood, you'd literally have nothing left except "this is a person who exists, the end". Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 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 redirect to Decepticon. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis (Transformers)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails to establish notability. Keep votes in previous AfDs come down to WP:ITSIMPORTANT. TTN (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:17, 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) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to... Decepticon, I guess? Definitely redirect somewhere, as there's no way this passes the WP:GNG. Even if we accept the article's four references as reliable sources (and I don't think we should), they wouldn't support an article of this length. This is better suited to a Transformers fan wiki. A Train^talk 14:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Decepticon per A Train. Aoba47 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers spacecraft, where it is already mentioned. Redirecting to Decepticon would be OK, but the list is more specific and it would be easier to achieve due weight. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 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 merge to Clare Boothe Luce. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Clare Brokaw[edit]

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

certainly a tragic death, but nothing indicates notability in her lifetime, if anything the notable bits attach to her mother, but notability is not inherited Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the calls to Merge to Clare Boothe Luce--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would say merge with her mother's page and redirect there. Her claim to significance is that her death affected her mother deeply and one result was the building of Saint Ann's Chapel in Palo Alto which was the center of the Stanford University Catholic community from its building until around 1970 when Stanford religious groups were allowed to hold services on campus (before then the only religious services had to be non-denominational in the Stanford Memorial Church); the chapel was eventually sold and is now a church for an Anglican splinter group. --Erp (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Clare Boothe Luce The cited content is interesting but it's not enough for general notability. A sentence or two could be merged into the article about the subject's mother. This should not standalone. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Blythwood (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect somewhere. The whole content of the article strikes me as utterly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 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) 06:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Dimmie[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP1E. The only source I could find was the one about her copyright suit. There is no real coverage of her music career and no evidence any of her works charted. Jbh ^Talk 11:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note there is an associated article Rhonda Dimmie discography. Jbh ^Talk 11:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 11:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Karst (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, only claim to notability is a copyright lawsuit and therefor falls under WP:BLP1E. Discography article is clearly a fail of WP:NALBUM.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lawsuit received minor coverage, and then only because it involved a celebrity. Independent notability is not established. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65B8:F59A:5E97:E329 (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Sigh, another case of publicists out of control. Initially CSDd, IP removed tag; fails any notability criteria. Simply no sourcing out there. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 13:29, 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) 06:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Eldrett[edit]

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

Non-notable actor who seems to have been mainly an extra. Unsourced and unreferenced. Even his IMDB article shows no acting career.Jack1956 (talk) 09:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think a lot of people have even heard of this guy. The source given has nothing. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 09:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked his IMDB page and his movie career was at best, short and unremarkable.Domdeparis (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 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) 06:44, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Ware (album)[edit]

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

No sources and could not find any when doing a Google search. Andise1 (talk) 07:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a notable self-release. Karst (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just a track list, unlikely to be expanded. Eventual informations could be included in Taylor Ware. Given the eponymy, a redirect appears to be useless. Cavarrone 10:54, 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 no consensus. I see no likelihood of obtaining consensus here. DGG ( talk ) 09:20, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs which have spent the most weeks on the UK Singles Chart[edit]

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

I may live to regret this given how useful I found this article for compiling my website. However, I can't find any source which contains this information; only the individual artist totals. This leads me to believe this is original research. Laun chba ller 21:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the various British Hit Singles books published by Guinness World Records up to 2006 contained these lists, updated with each edition. However, a decade has now passed since the last of these books was published, and the nature of this being a dynamic list means it's a nightmare to keep updated. Coupled with this is the fact that the advent of streaming has meant that songs generally spend far longer in the charts than they used to, and furthermore the OCC has since redefined the old chart positions from 76 to 100 as now qualifying as actual chart positions, when between 1978 and 1994 the BMRB and Gallup who used to compile the charts stated quite clearly at the time that these positions were indicative only and did not represent actual chart positions. So although sources do exist, they're not up to date and the goalposts have since been moved. Richard3120 (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: Launchballer, I'm not sure what you mean by not finding any source, only the artist totals – if you click on the reference for each song, it takes you to the artist page on the OCC website, and if you then scroll down the list of singles by that artist to find the relevant single, it displays the number of weeks on chart. So they are all there on the OCC page, but like I said, it requires someone to update this on a weekly basis. Richard3120 (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's what I meant by artist totals.--Laun chba ller 22:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it also gives the individual total weeks on chart for each single by that artist as well – hence the references in the article to the artist's page on the OCC website. Richard3120 (talk) 22:20, 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 10:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure what grounds there are for deletion. It does take regular updating, as do all the chart related pages (artists who only had number 2s, number one singles on the wax cylinder chart etc.), but the songs' week by week records are permanently available on OCC and so, even if one user goes in once a year and updates it (as long as the 'as of date' messages are present), it is perfectly possible. For a while I updated all the sections each week, but lately have concentrated on the 70+ weeks in top 100 as a minimum due to life. The increased torpidity of the charts since streaming means I'd be happy to see adjustments to our cut-offs (we raised 40 weeks to 50 initially, but if consensus is to go for 60 or 70 - fine) I think the different sections (top 40, top 75, top 100) are relevant, as each has at some point defined 'The Chart' and (as Richard3120 says above, the lower positions have been redefined). Again, these are all explicitly stated in the OCC stats along with weeks at number 1, top 10 and top 20 - which I have summarised in the lede, to avoid too many tables. Unlike sales figures, which are notoriously difficult to pin down, chart figures are published every week and largely agreed on by all sources, at least for the last few decades. Btljs (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 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. As some commenters have pointed out, the claims to have represented (or even been involved in representing) Montenegro at the ESC hinge on one source, which merely repeats comments from the subject's Instagram account. As Optatakeover points out, there are no reliable third-party sources here at all. Black Kite (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vasilije Ojdanić[edit]

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

Non-notable individual from Montenegro. Article contains many unsubstantiated claims of success as a singer. Sources other than the individual's official website are trivial claims of attempts to enter songs for the Eurovision Song Contest. Fails WP:MUSBIO. Pickette (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Keep - surely the article needs work. adding of sources etc. but that is irrelevant to notability. per WP:GNG. has entered the national selection for Eurovision. Has obviously released plenty of music singles. There is a difference between a bad shape article and notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a nomination because the bad shape of the article. There are no independent sources to verify this singer's claims of success or even notability as a performer. Claiming to have sent a song to a Eurovision national final does not make a singer notable. I could do the same; it wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article about myself. And some of those claims can't even be verified as factual because Montenegro never held an open call for songs in 2016. This article fails WP:GNG. Pickette (talk) 01:28, 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 06:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Pickette's reason. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a reasoning for deletion. BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, let me give a reason: "This isn't a nomination because the bad shape of the article. There are no independent sources to verify this singer's claims of success or even notability as a performer. Claiming to have sent a song to a Eurovision national final does not make a singer notable. I could do the same; it wouldn't warrant a Wikipedia article about myself. And some of those claims can't even be verified as factual because Montenegro never held an open call for songs in 2016. This article fails WP:GNG." - Pickette Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 04:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG [6] [7] (In spanish) [8]JohnTombs48 (talk) 06:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Great additional sources that provides further notability. BabbaQ (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The Spanish article you provided actually points out that his claim to be representing a country at the Eurovision Song Contest is a hoax. As are most if not all of the claims in this Wikipedia article. Pickette (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are primary sources of sites which are closely-associated with the Eurovision. Of course it's a given Eurovision-associated sites would talk about the people who do take part in the Eurovision. But is there any source out there which is not associated with the Eurovision, is not a primary source, is a third-party, neutral source, which talks about the person, his actual achievements and his fame/cult following/fan following/notability, as described at WP:NMUSICIAN??????? Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:MUSBIO and WP:HOAX. This guy has been trying to enter Eurovision for the past few years and has been the subject of multiple hoax announcements that, unfortunately, the fan press sometimes picks up on. The sources given by JohnTombs48 all say that Ojdanić lied about his participation. Here's a wiwibloggs article that describes the hoax: [9].

BabbaQ's reason to keep, saying that the subject has released multiple singles is not backed up by WP:MUSBIO as his singles did not chart, nor were they released by a major record label. Anybody can release a song and call it a single.

Not deleting this article would only lend credence to the subject's hoax and weaken the credibility of WikiProject Eurovision. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 22:16, 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. consensus DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeYes.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Officeyes.com

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

Non-notable company. Nothing significant but another company. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a Startup directory. Definitely getting funded by VC, and building Wikipedia page for their publicity, releasing articles on major media as paid or influenced. Light2021 (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO; an advertorial on an unremarkable e-commerce company. The size of the investment suggests that it's a minor player in its space. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:31, 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 06:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added a link above to the 2013 no-consensus AfD. AllyD (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My own view in the 2013 AfD was that all that was available was coverage on the propositional opportunity on which the company had been founded and obtained start-up funding. It should be noted though that others were strongly of another view. Reviewing the coverage of this firm, I have been surprised to see so little since that initial start-up coverage; searches using the tailored Indian search are finding little other than passing mention relative to Holisol, who provide the back-end logistics for this and other e-comm firms [10]. Now as in 2013, I fail to see the in-depth critical discussion needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 07:45, 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. Sandstein 07:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fanlala[edit]

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

created for high degree of promotions, nothing else! nothing is here Light2021 (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom - I'm finding a tiny amount of passing mention coverage of Fanlala and its parent and previous name, IMbee, an FTC press release that didn't appear to get coverage and an RSes about the owner's past. But nothing that swings it for me - David Gerard (talk) 10:02, 17 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) 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I wish I had in fact commented sooner so we could've deleted it faster, given this is a clear advertisement, only listing the information best suited for advertising the company itself, and it's a fact considering this has literally not changed since said started advertisement therefore suggesting no one apparently cares at all for making an actual convincing article. SwisterTwister talk 05:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are pretty weak. The coverage in reliable sources is limited to brief mentions with no depth such as [11], [12] and [13]. I don't see enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH at this time. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:42, 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. Hut 8.5 15:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Los Reyes de la Pichaera[edit]

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

No references or evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure anything related to this band, including the five albums that have articles and the article on the band itself, is notable – none of it is referenced beyond their social media presence. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 17 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) 05:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close this Afd per WP:SOFTDELETE. It won't be sensible to have such unreferenced articles survive Afds because of No consensus, when no sources are available any way. Lourdes 07:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No sources whatsoever. Karst (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Not finding any coverage in reliable sources, and does not appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:NALBUMS. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 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 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pools of Light[edit]

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

Completely unnotable album. Page was created by subject related to the article. Another editor had evidence that this article and the related articles were created by a paid service. Sn00per (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons. These are all just absolute junk and promotional. I think the artist himself is notable enough, but none of these secondary pages are needed:

Albums:

Afterplay (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Expect a Miracle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Shortcuts - redirects that were articles that should have also been deleted.

Tomorrow's Daydream Solo Piano Songbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Butterfly Rapture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pools of Light Solo Piano Songbook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Brian Kelly (composer & pianist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pools of Light (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Afterplay (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Expect A Miracle (Brian Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Categories:

Category:Brian Kelly (composer) albums
Category:Brian Kelly (composer) compilation albums - seriously?

Template:

Template:Brian Kelly (composer)

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 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Another editor had evidence" is not evidence, but anecdote. @Sn00per: Please provide the evidence, or a link to it, or strike that claim. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ask User:Stevebliss1933 who made that claim on the Brian Kelly page. Sn00per (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Steve on his talk page. Sn00per (talk) 18:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of it. Clearly promotional. 12.1.93.35 (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - While the artist himself appears to be notable, I don't see reason to think that these releases are. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:36, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ismail Salami[edit]

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

Currently fails WP:GNG WP:BIO. May meet WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR (author and translator can be verified). (Was having difficulty restoring an older version which has weak sourcing, and restore triggered the edit filter). Quick search didn't find coverage in RS. That leaves a BLP failing WP:V where the birth year has changed 1968 -> 1970 -> 1968 and can't easily be verified. WP:PERMASTUB Widefox; talk 11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After adding the publications (translation from .de) WP:AUTHOR seems the closest. Widefox; talk 11:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An assistant professor is very unlikely to pass WP:PROF, but I haven't checked other possible routes to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Publication of a letter and response to it in New York Review of Books [14] implies some degree of notability. He's also heavily quoted here. I'm leaning toward keep here, in part because he's published _so_ many articles (many of which are nutty IMO, but that's another issue). But there isn't a lot that contributes to WP:N. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The guy's writings appear to be pretty rabidly anti-semetic and if this is kept, we should be sure the article indicates that a bit more strongly than it does now. Hobit (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment article can be improvedWorldlinguistic (talk) 09:15, 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 00:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Persian, but maybe someone who can could look for sources under the Persian spelling of the name, found in the infobox of the Turkish Wikipedia article:

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

86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at this time as no sources have been presented at this AfD to justify inclusion. As noted above, the subject's views are not fully reflected in the article, so I think it's best to delete rather than have a misleading article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt considering the past 2 deletions alone, one in 2010 and the other 2013 which actually mean something, and the other thing is that he's literally not convincing for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 23:56, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is a BLP with hardly any reliable secondary sources to verify the information. I am not opposed to a recreation of this article should reliable sources be found. But at this moment, I see a lot of articles by him but nothing about him. I am using the rationale at WP:WHYN here that we require reliable sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article about the subject. At the moment the sources (such as the primary source from Anti Defamation League alleging anti-semitism) do not allow us to do that. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:54, 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 keep. Cavarrone 07:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

D/C (musician)[edit]

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

My specific PROD removed one day before its set time for deletion, with the lone basis of an existing Allmusic link, which of course is not convincing for notability alone; everything here is not at all substantial, both information and sources, and none is to be expected since he's only been active a year. SwisterTwister talk 00:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the allmusic link was not existing as I added it and it is a biography rather than just a listing which is more than most musicians get on allmusic, mainly just listings.It is early in the career of the act so this is borderline but he does seem notable. Regarding the prod removal I tend to leave it to the last minute in the hope that someone else will have deprodded it. Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is still not actually showing us how, where and why the subject is convincingly notable for an article, yet despite also having listed all of my analyzed concerns above. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good start, but I'd like more. Surprised he couldn't get any chart action as yet - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 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 04:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have a short Allmusic bio, plus [15] (yes I know it's an interview, but also contains content written about him), [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. Not great in terms of depth, but probably covered widely enough to justify keeping. --Michig (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Simply having an Allmusic is still questionable for the needed substance and going into some of these, I notice they are not only questionable music blogs, but they also simply advertise him, such as the fact of his career plans and the last one apparently only being some "5 best new songs this week", hardly actual substance, especially considering how underwhelming the article currently is. SwisterTwister talk 06:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones do you consider "questionable music blogs", and which ones "simply advertise him"? --Michig (talk) 06:52, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laura-Leigh[edit]

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

Non-notable, only one credible source. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 12:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this actress has had roles in several television and film productions. WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 09:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Note: I created this article. Per WP:NACTOR, one of several criteria that each individually suffice to establish an actor's notability is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The movies The Ward (by noted director John Carpenter and with an estimated budget of $10 million, albeit a critical and box office failure) and We're the Millers (estimated $270 million worldwide gross) easily qualify as notable films; Gossip Girl, Law & Order, and Numb3rs easily qualify as notable television shows; finally, a stage performance of the play Boy's Life which was reviewed in the New York Times probably qualifies as a notable stage performance (and note that this actress was mentioned by name in that review). Thus the only remaining question is what constitutes a "significant role". Clearly, a "significant role" is not the same as a top-billing, starring, or headlining role, otherwise the written criteria would use wording to that effect. It should be sufficient if the character has a name which gets mentioned by the other characters and the character has speaking lines in more than one scene and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog including direct interaction and dialog with the top-billed star of the film. That is the case with both of the above-mentioned films. I have not viewed the one-time guest appearances in the episodes of the TV series mentioned above, but in two of them the character is credited in IMDb with a first name and a last name (the third is merely credited as "Barista"), which likely indicates multiple speaking lines and actually playing a part in the unfolding of the plot. Finally, a role in a stage play is probably sufficiently "significant" if a New York Times review devotes one entire sentence solely to that character. The proposer has only provided a five-word boilerplate justification, and it is inaccurate at that, since IMDb and the New York Times already constitute two credible sources, and a small-town newspaper is a third credible source, at least for biographical details of a person from that town. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@P.T. Aufrette: while NYT is a credible source, IMDb is merely a listing. See WP:N and WP:IRS. Simply appearing in notable shows does not necessarily make an actor notable on their own. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to imply that merely being listed in IMDb is enough to make an actor notable, only that it is a credible source as to which movies and TV shows an actor has appeared in. Regarding notability for actors, as I mentioned above, if there are multiple appearances in notable movies and TV shows then per the WP:NACTOR criteria it all hinges on what constitutes a "significant role". In connection with We're the Millers, I suggested some possible indicators that a minor role is not insignificant (e.g., a character whose name is introduced and has speaking lines in more than one scene, and has multiple consecutive lines of dialog in interaction with a main character), and you did not address that point. And the role in The Ward, specifically, was actually a co-starring role in an ensemble cast, and her name is fourth-billed in the opening credits: Amber Heard, Mamie Gummer, Danielle Panabaker, Laura-Leigh, Lyndsy Fonseca, Mika Boorem, and Jared Harris, in that order (you can find some ripped version of the movie on YouTube if you need to verify this, for instance here). There was also a co-starring role (sixth-billed in opening credits) in the direct-to-video parody movie Tooken and a role in the Jennifer Love Hewitt TV series The Client List (recurring character in season 1, series regular in season 2), and these productions meet the Wikipedia general notability guideline. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, borderline but has received some decent coverage and has several significant roles (notably a leading role in Carpenter's The Ward and as a regular in The Client List) enough to pass NACTOR. Cavarrone 10:46, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva Shah[edit]

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

promotional and non notable. Trivial over-specific awards, insufficient to justify claim of "a pioneer" The sources are either direct or barely disguised press releases/ DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

promotional article and not notable Mascarponette (talk) 09:30, 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 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most search results are for a different Apoorva Shah. The Maharashtra Vaibhav Award might be significant but subject lacks notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable doctor. Article only exists to promote the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:04, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Stock[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN, and there is nothing listed about her that makes her notable enough to have her own article. What is on her article seems impressive, but the article appears more like a campaign biography rather than something more substantial. Does not meet notability guidelines. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. 1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Political candidate not notable for career as a lawyer. Meatsgains (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – The timing of this article's creation was indeed quite suspicious, but campaign advertising for topics lacking enduring notability has been an unfortunate way of life on Wikipedia for years. That won't change until people get their heads screwed on straight about what's notable versus what's today's or yesterday's trending topics and quit relying on corporate media to dictate to them what to write about on here. Going back to the last election for this same U.S. Senate seat, Scott McAdams had some pretty blatant COI issues. Moreover, I've seen evidence of the belief that McAdams was highly notable six years ago but is non-notable today. I don't believe whatsoever that this is the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. The reason I say "neutral" boils down to this story. To summarize, much of the Alaska Democratic Party establishment is supporting Stock over their own nominee, Ray Metcalfe. Evidence of that was abundant during the recently-concluded Alaska Federation of Natives convention. Perhaps this is the opposite of WP:TOOSOON, namely that this AFD is coming along too soon. Given that the election is two weeks away, if Stock's money and party support results in a respectable showing at the polls, it could be necessary to revisit a deleted article. Since the article has been around this long, there is no real harm in waiting until after the election. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Stock is notable as a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, a major award that includes a $625,000 prize. We already have biographies of a large majority of MacArthur Fellows. Accordingly, she meets WP:ANYBIO which says that a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The person is notable as a recipient of MacArthur Fellowship, and hence meets WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times".--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale given regarding the MacArthur Fellowship pretty much proves my point about having our heads screwed on straight. Too many "biographical" articles I've read about MacArthur Fellows or Goldman Environmental Prize winners or similar are WP:COATRACK articles to the prizes themselves and have little or nothing to do with the biography of the article's titular subject. This is not too dissimilar to the way WP:PORNBIO has been used to justify coatrack articles to awards of dubious value to the general public while offering little or no useful biographical information or an WP:INUNIVERSE version of a biography tied to incestuous sources. I guess others must be interpreting WP:NOTDIRECTORY and/or the term "biography" differently than I am. This article leans too far in the direction of being a series of aggressively cherry-picked facts and sources as opposed to a proper biography; for example, a date and place of birth would be the logical starting point, not rattling off a laundry list of job titles. All this makes the rationale of "campaign biography rather than something more substantial" perfectly understandable. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article was started in September, 2014 and it did not mention her Senate candidacy until February, 2016. That refutes the notion that the article was written as a campaign biography. Also worth noting is that the article includes only a single, neutral sentence about her candidacy. If you can find her date of birth, feel free to add it, RadioKAOS. If you want to change WP:ANYBIO or argue that MacArthur fellows do not qualify, please feel free to try at the appropriate places. I will oppose. At present, she meets the guideline by any reasonable interpretation, and therefore the article should be kept. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at the history, it's clear the article has seen some big changes in the last several months, which is not surprising considering the election. I do think it needs a major re-organization and the refs need to be cleaned up (someone apparently doesn't know how to use reference names for multiple citations of the same ref) but I thinkat the end of the day the article is a keeper. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying my remarks, more like what Beeblebrox said. It seems there's too much dross coming across my watchlist constantly for me to keep things straight. The "campaign biography" stuff originates with multiple SPAs making major revisions before February of this year. As she's running an active, well-funded campaign, I hope that no one is naive enough to believe that to be mere coincidence. Cullen's remark "If you can find her date of birth, feel free to add it" further affirms what I've already said. Why do we use the term "biography" if we're not dedicated to offering biographical details about biographical subjects? If the primary purpose of the encyclopedia is to repeat the contents of some other webpage, then we ultimately don't have a purpose other than catering to those more interested in content than information or those willing to let us dictate "human knowledge" to them instead of informing them and letting them decide for themselves. If the world really worked that way, this AFD would have never happened. Partially in regards to Bearcat's comments, the repeated invocation of ANYBIO smells of policy shopping. That same page also contains WP:NPOL. The story I link to above indicates that she may possibly meet NPOL, but that won't be a certain thing one way or the other until the election is over and returns are available. It's not as clearcut as JPL claims below, as articles on other unsuccessful U.S. Senate candidates with similar rationales have survived AFD in the past. I originally became involved with this project because of my interest in biography, especially political biography. I've been rather dismayed at what I've seen in the years since, basically one huge example of reflecting what's trending today at the expense of reflecting human knowledge. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 23:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She will not be notable as a politcian unless she wins, and the fellowship does not meet any academic notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @Johnpacklambert: You must be kidding. A MacArthur Fellowship is not an academic award, since it has been awarded to people like blacksmiths and social justice advocates as well as academics and authors and artists, but it certainly meets the WP:ANYBIO standard as a "well-known and significant award or honor". Are you arguing otherwise? The awards itself and the recipients receive massive coverage in reliable sources every single year. Look it up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She is indeed notable as a recipient of a MacArthur Fellowship, a major award.she meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, without prejudice against recreation on MacArthur Fellowship grounds if somebody can do better than this. GNG and ANYBIO are not met by winning an award in and of itself; they're met by garnering media coverage for winning an award. No notability claim, in fact, can ever be passed just by asserting that it's true — a notability claim is not passed until it's reliably sourced as true. But of the 12 sources present here, 10 of them are primary sources that cannot support notability, such as content where she's the bylined author and not the subject and/or her "our staff" profiles on the websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with. There are only two sources here that count as reliable source coverage at all — and one of them isn't about her, but merely quotes her giving soundbite about the person who is the actual subject of the article, while the other one is WP:ROUTINE coverage of the election itself. And while it's true that the article was written before she was a candidate and then torqued into a campaign brochure, the precandidacy version was staked entirely on the primary sources with no RS coverage, and would have been deletable on that basis had somebody noticed it at the time. Sure, a MacArthur grant would very likely be enough to grant her preexisting notability for her prior work — but this is not the sourcing that it takes to get her there. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Flipped to a keep per Cullen328's sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Bearcat: I took your TNT comment seriously, and although I disagree that the article should be deleted, I also recognize the validity of your critique of the sources then in the article. I found several reliable, independent sources from before her Senate candidacy and added them to the article. I removed many of the weak sources, although I left in a few primary sources about her testimony before Congress as I believe that the other sources I have added establish her notability. This is not a campaign brochure as it contains only a single neutral sentence about her candidacy and is devoid of political language promoting her. I hope that you will reconsider. By the way, I had never heard of her until I saw this AfD debate. My only interest is in improving the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's more like it. Adjusted my comment accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. SST flyer 12:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MacArthur makes her meet WP:ANYBIO. Improvements to the article have been made. No reason to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 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 22:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes (Mister Peculiar album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM, no significant media coverage. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 04:40, 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 album. No coverage found. --Michig (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are references and sources talking about the artist, all mentioned in the page. --Fabpec (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the article lists this review from M Magazine, but I don't know if this is RS. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:21, 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 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found on either the artist or the album. The sources come from 2 reviews from web pages that do not seem to be very significant in themselves, the FB page of Jamsphere https://www.facebook.com/JamSphere/posts/ has 52k likes but each post totals between 1 and 4 likes and the FB page of Pure M, https://www.facebook.com/PureMofficial/, has 7k likes but each post has between 0 and 7 likes...I can't believe that these are notable references. maybe it would be interesting to know how many copies were pressed/sold Domdeparis (talk) 16:34, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Grid District[edit]

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

Non-notable place. Not a historic district nor even a connected collection of buildings. This name is purely a marketing strategy for a developer. There are no historic reference to this "district" before this year. See Talk:Bancroft Hotel for a related discussion. Found5dollar (talk) 00:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Changed !vote; see discussion down below)~~Keep~~ The four reliable sources within the article are independent of the subject and discuss both the topic and the grid extensively. If the material within the article seems promotional (it does actually), we'll have to clear that up to an npov state. But the sources are enough for the subject to have its own article, whether or not the name has been created by a private developer. Lourdes 03:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are from news articles relating to the subject, where the buildings are mentioned many times as "the grid" also edited the page to remove promotional content - and looked for unbiased articles but only found news. Article on projects in worcester - http://worcestermag.com/2016/08/11/wait-pow-wow-artists-announced/44861 2601:182:CC03:CD00:8550:2692:2910:B735 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:16, 7 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) 09:20, 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 01:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete GHits show that this is just the name of a multi-building apartment complex. One unwary reference in a Worchester weekly does not notability make. Mangoe (talk) 00:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a look and I wasn't able to find any sources to show that this is an official historic "district". For example, from here, "When completed, the Grid District will be a mixed-use project with 510 residential units, 60,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space and more than 300 parking spaces." This looks nothing more than a private housing project and per WP:GEOFEAT this wouldn't qualify for notability. More importantly, the coverage is restricted to a couple of local publications which are only announcing that this project is planned (but nothing concrete has been built yet). We have routinely deleted such "upcoming" projects per WP:FAILN, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTPROMO (as the article only serves to promote the project). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lemongirl942, Mangoe, some inputs requested from you on the following points: WP:GEOFEAT mentions, and I quote, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability." Multiple third party references are mentioned within the article that establish the same. Secondly, the Grid District is not a future planned project. If you read the sources, you'll realize it is a rebranding of past existing constructions which are being renovated. Lastly, I accept that the majority of sources belong to Worcester, Massachusetts. If all sources belonging to Worcester should be considered local and should not be considered, then I'm open to changing my !vote. Will appreciate your responses. Lourdes 06:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the citations are from Worchester newspapers and represent the sort of routine coverage expected of any large residential project, particularly those in the Worchester Business Journal. Mangoe (talk) 10:25, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply Mangoe. So my question remains. Should we ignore Worcester newspapers (in the sense that is Worcester a small or insignificant territory from where coverage should not matter)? As an example, if something takes place in Paris, and only Paris newspapers cover the same, should we ignore that (or perhaps my analogy is wrong)? Also, you describe the coverage as one expected of a "large business project". All the sources cover the subject spanning the whole news report. If this full page news coverage reports are what is expected of large scale projects, isn't such coverage exactly what Wikipedia is supposed to be documenting per GEOFEAT, large residential projects (and not small insignificant ones)? Your inputs will help me get clue on this issue. Lourdes 10:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule one would expect this sort of local US newspaper to report on any sort of redevelopment project. If there were outside coverage of it as a remarkable project I would take that as an indication of notability, but this sort of local coverage is routine. Mangoe (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I get what you're mentioning. Lourdes 02:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five news articles from three different reliable third-party sources over a six-month period that all discuss the topic by name, and in some detail, establishes notability. That's more than most WP articles have. The article does not claim any historic significance so that seems to be a red herring (two of the buildings are listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but that is largely irrelevant). That it is a commercial development has nothing to do with notability; we have hundreds of articles on shopping malls. If there is a promotional tone, that calls for improvement, not deletion. Ideally, this could be incorporated into a larger article about the significant urban renewal proposal in Worcester, but I see no reason to delete accurate, factual, well-sourced info from WP. Station1 (talk) 06:30, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Technology Transfer and Society[edit]

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

Article PRODded with reason "Ephemeral journal, published for only a short time. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by DGG with stated reason "I am unwilling to delete a project MUSE journal without a discussion at AfD." PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG and NJournals. No current significant coverage in reliable sources or selective databases. Also, I can't see the historical value of this now defunct journal. I read some of the abstracts, and this journal seems to do little more than record obscure historical facts and circumstances. It appears the impact of this journal on U.S. or global societies is little more than a historian (or historians) could accomplish with good to excellent researching skills.

For example, this abstract [23], and this abstract [24] are not impressive in themselves and the content that each summarizes does not seem impressive. The leadership behind publishing this journal appears to have been technology transfer officers - who have come from, or who have connections to - the commercial sector. This seems apparent in the aforementioned second abstract and the following linked article [25] - these seem to have promotional overtones.

I have to wonder if the intent behind publishing this journal is to toot the horns of technology transfer officers and somehow bestow prestige upon this profession. It appears to me, there is no unique contribution here, because I think other notable sociology or history journals probably achieve much better coverage from authentic scholarly perspectives. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:46, 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 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A journal that died after six years and doesn't list any major indexing services seems like a clear fail of WP:NJournals despite its good publisher. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein journals was died. No longer in publication. Jessie1979 (talk) 06:28, 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. Sandstein 18:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pingoatuk Kolola[edit]

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

I believe this does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event requirement for a stand alone article. The actual shooting does not even merit an article. Also violates Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 00:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sources, per extensive coverage. WP:ONEEVENT is irrelevant if the event is notable. Most of the crime articles are one event. ONEEVENT also does not apply as the subject has had as I stated above extensive coverage.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ONEEVENT is not "irrelevant if the event is notable", nor is it incompatible with "most of the crime articles" — if an event is notable, then we keep an article about the event, not a standalone WP:BLP of every individual person involved in it. That fact is precisely why most of the crime articles are titled "Murder of [Victim]" rather than "[Name of Murderer]". The number of sources actually being cited here is far from "extensive" — four sources isn't that extensive to begin with, even before you notice that two of the four are deadlinks whose content is unverifiable. You could cite two, three or four news articles about every single murder that ever happened at all, but that doesn't make a biography of every single murderer in the history of human death appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia — for our purposes, a murder is notable if it had significant long-term aftereffects, such as a new law being named after the victim to address loopholes where existing law was significantly inadequate to the situation (frex, Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — note that even our articles about the Shepard and Byrd murders are titled for the victims, not the killers), and is not automatically eligible for inclusion just because the WP:ROUTINE amount of coverage that a murder would be expected to generate verifies the fact that it happened. But nothing here demonstrates that this murder meets our actual notability standard for murders in any identifiable way. And I'd also note that the nominator lives in Nunavut, and therefore his reading of whether a murder that happened in Nunavut is permanently notable or not carries a lot of weight in a discussion like this. If BabbaQ really feels that this is notable enough, he's certainly welcome to try for a Murder of Douglas Scott article instead — but it would have to cite significantly more sources and contain significantly more substance than this does. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 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) 05:22, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still have not seen a good rationale for deletion. This is clearly a notable article. ONEEVENT is irrelevant as stated above. BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nunavut has a high murder rate (%) but this tends to translate into 6 a year so they tend to get a lot of coverage. Here's one from Cambridge Bay and this has a large amount of coverage. The amount of coverage does not equal notability. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot this. A general search for Cape Dorset shooting. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear case of WP:BLP1E. I've !voted for keeping articles of murderers in the past, but that is when the crime is notorious and their actions surrounding it have somehow garnered them notability other than just being the mere perpetrator of a crime. This is not the case here, so there is no need for the article. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:01, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHW World Heavyweight Champion[edit]

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

Despite its "world" designation, this WHW (World Hardcore Wrestling) isn't notable, let alone its heavyweight champion status. By the way, I guessed from the organization's website that it was a bunch of kids wrestling in the backyard; the one reliable source I found that mentions it confirms this, one of 15 such groups in Indiana alone. Largoplazo (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-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 Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:43, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-might want to look over Tony Ochoa which looks like a autobio by that user looking at the user page. Wgolf (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion this is something a couple of blokes have made up and performed in their living room, it wouldn't surprise me if this Tony Ochoa guy actually created the page Seasider91 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Professional wrestling has no oversight committees so any promotion, and I use that term loosely, can call their belt a "world championship" without dispute. WHW isn't notable, it's current champion isn't notable and this title isn't notable.LM2000 (talk) 18:20, 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. In closing this I do have to give more weight to arguments based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines, as opposed to other considerations such as Facebook likes. The main consideration here is the coverage the topic has received in third-party reliable sources, and there is consensus below that this isn't sufficient. Hut 8.5 17:01, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Futurism (website)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Just another one like The Next Web or YourStory. Made for Promotions by promotions alone and nothing else. High Degree of Self Promotions. Light2021 (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:12, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per the previous discussion. It has received sufficient attention from independent sources (see the article's references section) to be considered notable. Another indicator of this notability are the ~3,9 million(!) likes of its facebook page. --Fixuture (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the last AfD you mentioned that Facebook likes thing. and that page is deleted now. Same argument will get same answer only. Facebook likes has nothing to do with notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MakeUseOf Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: This is ridiculous and you know it - of course do facebook likes matter and are an indication of notability. There's the problem with bought facebook likes etc so these shouldn't be taken too serious - however they're still an indication and beyond than that when they're in the millions. --Fixuture (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixuture Ridiculous? Seriously? Facebook likes? Which wikipedia guidelines you are reading? not this one for sure! can you even cite your reference or the Ridiculous guidelines you are talking about? Millions of likes? I can make a page for you for your fiction company and get you million likes. That means we should write a page for this fictional company as well on Wikipedia. That's ridiculous! Light2021 (talk) 10:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Light2021: Which ones are saying that these can't be regarded as an indication of notability? It's just common sense that millions of likes hint to notability of the subject.

I can make a page for you for your fiction company and get you million likes.

Oh you can? Please go ahead and do it. --Fixuture (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy that Wikipedia does not work on your "common sense". Else I don't know what you can make out of it. Believe me on this one. You can have Millions of Facebook likes without being even existed in real world. that is how they mislead people like you or like people even create this! Light2021 (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the closure of the previous AFD by SwisterTwister was a correct assessment of consensus that this article should be kept. Nothing has changed since then. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- to quote an AfD close on a similar topic (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MakeUseOf), "high Alexa rankings and Facebook likes" are not evidence of notability". I do not see sources in the article or at this AfD that cover the subject directly and in detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete instead as I only closed as Keep the last time given there was no other comments in that set amount of time, this article currently, however, then suggests only the expected information and attention for such a new company, especially about what there is to advertise about it. Also, as we continue experiencing and battling these advertisements, it shows the concerns themselves here in that this article has not changed at all and that also then shows there's nothing to suggest otherwise better and sufficiently better given the amount of article age (now over 6 months and yet still the same trivial information). SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 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 01:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per K.e.coffman. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help : My vote of stats is showing "Keep". Can someone help. why is the Keep vote where I have nominated for the deletion.Light2021 (talk) 09:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Facebook likes are irrelevant here. The supposed "sources" are just filler material published to generate advertising clicks (a classic giveaway of this is the eyecatching use of numbers in titles: "40", 28", "30"). Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Facebook likes do not contribute to notability unless reliable secondary sources take note of it. We are clear on that. Over here the coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject is missing and there is no need to have an article per WP:WHYN. I also think this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment isn't it that there are rarely articles about news websites (what is there to write about anyways?) - instead those news websites just feature articles themselves. Hence for notability here the websites popularity needs to be assessed. There are various indicators that allow for that to be done. Why don't we just go ahead and do that? --Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). 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. Ignoring all the very similar non-policy based !votes, consensus is clearly to delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Berliner Tageszeitung[edit]

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

Non-notable. Although categorized as newspaper, this is a very unimportant website of unknown origin. The owners (according to the "Impressum" now located in China) seem to have a strong interest to keep the article here as proof of relevance, but in fact, this website is not notable and the "newspaper" was never printed (since WW2). The article also contains no reliable sources. In german Wikpedia it has been frequently created and deleted and is now create-protected after several discussions, here the last one. Hyperdieter (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The wrong information is also pushed into other articles, e.g. Alimzhan_Tokhtakhunov, Solntsevskaya Bratva and even as source in Murder of Oksana Makar. It es even listed in List_of_prizes,_medals_and_awards, although absolutely unknown in Germany. An article about the former editor-in-chief Reiko Opitz from Der Spiegel in poor translation. --Hyperdieter (talk) 19:07, 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} 19:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was too slow --Hyperdieter (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

From what I can see it seems that there are are at least two notable historical publications with this title, but the one described in this article does not appear to be notable. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is to seen without any emotions not any Reason to delete this Article, because 1) this Newspaper exist not before 2006, to say anything about WW2 is strange and have not any Reason! Maybe the Editor "Hyperdieter" from Germany have a own Problem with the Newspaper him self, but acc. to the Wikipedia Policy the Article is correct, includet the Judgement and trademark dispute! But when Hyperdieter feels better in his Life, than he can be proud of his strange Application for cancellation of this Article, and when this is really all to make the Life of Hyperdieter better than do what your want and make your Life a little bit better, Bravo! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:7:441:441:D64A:1202:261A (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no reason to delete this article historically usable because of trademark dispute and judgement https://web.archive.org/web/20140701215803/http://berlinertageszeitung.com/images/stories/Berlin/Judgement%20Berliner%20Tageszeitung%20vs%20Berliner%20Zeitung%20-%202007.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:5:43B:43B:9EC7:7C63:557B (talk) 22:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why to delete this article? Article is useful and he make sense, valuable because of trademark dispute! Hyperdieter it seems you have personal reasons agaist the owner of the newspaper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:3:420:420:B6B5:C541:8F88 (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After read the Article of SPIEGEL (full of sensless Gosip) I ask me, witch Problem have Hyperdieter (maybe personal reasons?) in fact I see not any Reason to delete this Article, the Article stays in accordance with the WP Policies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:8BC0:17D0:8CC2:4421:7B2B:B25D (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have still been unable to find any significant coverage of this Berliner Tageszeitung in independent reliable sources, including sources in German. Involvement in a trademark dispute doesn't confer notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete. It is maliciously to say thats not posible to find significant coverrage about "Berliner Tageszeitung"! I ask me as uninvolved Person: "what is the real Problem for this Application for cancellation by "Hyperdieter" from Germany? Is it envy or boredom? In fact, the Newspaper "Berliner Tageszeitung" exist from 2006, it is a registred Trademark (from 2006 with extension until 2026) and the Website is like by all other Newspapers on our Planet! The Newspaper is relevant and all other what is write here in this "delete talking" is for me sensless poor gosip! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:5:41E:41E:524B:7CFD:613A (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than accuse Hyperdieter and me of malice why not just point to some of the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that you say exists? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. After reading the German Wikipedia discussion, it becomes apparent that this is not in fact a physical newspaper, as the title would suggest, but a Chinese-owned German language news website that has appropriated a legitimate-sounding German newspaper name. The German Wikipedia discussion concluded, and I concur, that there is no reliable third-party coverage of this news website that would make it notable per WP:GNG. The many IPs commenting above as well as the extremely mediocre quality of the site's journalistic content indicate that the whole thing might be some sort of vehicle for commercial or political promotion backed by a professional promotional apparatus, which relies on a Wikipedia entry to give it some semblance of legitimacy. Salting it is therefore appropriate to prevent recreation. Sandstein 10:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete? And to says it, the article is fully ok, and as information it's a online newspaper and all other decides like i see in the past the highest court from Berlin in Germany! The Name "Berliner Tageszeitung" is a official Trademark, like all newspapers have it worldwide, from 2006 - minimum to 2026, so all is legal by european law! Not delete. And as for me to says it, this dispute is strange and looks like as a personal interest from the applicant! 13:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.94.192.26 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Is essentially a fake article about a fake newspaper. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete. That it's not a "fake newspaper" decided like I also read the highest court from Berlin at 2007, and in the article stays only what is it for newspaper, so I see not and little "fake" https://web.archive.org/web/20140701215803/http://berlinertageszeitung.com/images/stories/Berlin/Judgement%20Berliner%20Tageszeitung%20vs%20Berliner%20Zeitung%20-%202007.png - the only what I see is envy and unconstructive ramblings in this discussion! And to say it without emotions, 90% of the companys behind a newspaper are not based in their country, like Axel Springer SE, so please to says: "it is in China" is not a "proof" for a "fake newspaper"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:7:41A:41A:6B6F:8E70:19FA (talk) 18:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the way to get this kept is to demonstrate that this Berliner Tageszeitung has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you do that then all of the "delete" opinions will become invalid. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "newspaper" looks like a copycat version of the Berliner Zeitung to me. Originally it even had the exact same style headline but obviously by court order they had to change that.

So this one is "known colloquially as BTZ"? Yeah, sure. I doubt that it is known as anything colloquially. What a coincidence that the Berliner Zeitung is in fact known colloquially as BZ.

Their Impressum (Terms of use) is fascinating too. €15.50 per minute for a phone call to contact the company. Why would that be, if they have company headquarters in Berlin, as the article wants to make us believe? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe what I read in the article.

BTW, trying to save this including some links just now, Wikipedia tells me that "The following link has triggered a protection filter: berlinertageszeitung.de. Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked." Now why would that be? --84.190.84.207 (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not delete. Sorry, I understand the german language very well, in the court order from 2007 stays not even one word of a "style", to spread here lies is immoral and help this discussion nothing! The true is that stays clearly in the court order, that Berliner Zeitung an Berliner Tageszeitung are not confusing and that the Berliner Tageszeitung win the court trial, this a fact! And btw, when the Berliner Zeitung sees in the past and actual only one milimeter chance to block the .de domain of Berliner Tageszeitung, than i am sure, they try to do it! But even this very specially court trial, and the fact that the Berliner Tageszeitung is a online newspaper, is more than a reason do Not delete this article. Also is a fact that in plus/minus 10 years the print newspapers will be not more exist, because pint newspapers are newspapers from yesterday, because they printed in the night before their sales begin. And to says it clear, for me is it fair to know what cost me a call, whatever is the price. Also I see that the owner of the trademark of Berliner Tageszeitung is the owner of the Berliner Tageblatt, maybe this is the next candidate to delete? lol. As external vistitor is see here at least not one reason to delete the artice Berliner Tageszeitung, the only what I really see is that the highest court of the city Berlin give a online newspaper right and that maybe some "journalists" not like this court decission from 2007! And in the end I'm sure, the Berliner Tageszeitung exist now more than 11 years, they will also exist in the next 11 years, when the most of the "writers" here are not more interest in this "interesting" discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.46.101.70 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion isn't about whether this is a genuine newspaper or about trademarks or other intellectual property, but about whether it passes our notability guidelines by being the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I understand German well enough to see that no such coverage has been cited either in the article or in this discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. The only independent reliable sources appear to be the Patentamt (o.k., so the thing exists) and the law suit documentation. Come to think of it, the latter might have been the only promising claim to notability, had the scandal and its documentation been a bit more than a tempest in a teapot.

I guess the guidelines that would apply here are WP:WEBCRIT, and I don't see any of that in the article. --84.190.88.113 (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acc to the "WP Guidelines" is the article correct, all other is a strange discussion. And for it was really funny to see how strong is the miserable envy here. I was really amused to see that the Founder of this Newspaper have a great Idea, makes big Money and other People are only envy. First it was a stupid talking about a Newspaper after "WW2", than all here understand that this App. from "Hyperdieter" was poor bullshit, later it was a talking of a battle between Berlin Newspapers and now is it the "WP Guideline". Last but not least it will be at the end only a sensless talking from someone how have nothing in the Pocket and other Peopple there make big Money. LOL. Btw, I find the article "Berliner Tageszeitung" interesting and sensfull, so that I say without any emotion Not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.147.99 (talk) 15:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject appears to be failing WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. Anup [Talk]
Not delete because any sources of the article is proved, to use WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG is absolute strange and not applicable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:4A80:0:44A:44A:795C:18B9:AB9 (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I use 1 hour of my life to read this discussion, after I tried to find out something by Wikipedia about "Berliner Tageszeitung", I saw 42.800 folowers by twitter and more than 37.300 articles from "Berliner Tageszeitung" by twitter http://www.twitter.com/blntageszeitung than I saw that the "Berliner Tageszeitung" exists from 2005 and had a court disput with big media monopolists and I saw the "Berliner Tageszeitung" won this court disput, now I ask self why does it need to delete this article and my decission is, that it doesnt exist any reason, so not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.117.118.195 (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting worse. The IP user with the variable IP location and the invariable accent is now undoing improvements to the article, reverting to false claims.

I guess it's a case of unconsciously wanting the article deleted. Well, if they insist on making the article worse, I'm not going to interfere again. --93.212.226.53 (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I not understand why this article have to been delete? I look and controll anything, the newspaper is 11 years on the market and even the part of the "Auberge Award" is true. So that I say not delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.24.233.224 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After I read all here, because i tryed to find something about berlin newspapers and after I look all informations about the berliner tageszeitung at the word wide web, I say also from my side NOT DELETE this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.36.37.205 (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i read all and my decission is not delete this article! the article was for me usefull! i don't see any little reason to delete this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.46.101.70 (talk) 20:06, 6 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 Uttoxeter. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:30, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Windsor Park Middle School[edit]

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

Should be redirected to the locality Uttoxeter (or possibly the council Staffordshire County Council) per the norm for non-notable middle schools. I see no claim to notability in this article for the school or the building it is in, and I can find no reliable sources showing the notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:GROUP. Meters (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recreated three days after a speedy deletion on promo grounds. Meters (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per long-established consensus at AfD that all but the most exceptional primary schools are presumed non-notable. It would be nice if there were a speedy process for this to avoid clogging AfD. Carrite (talk) 04:21, 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 01:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree with Carrite. Blythwood (talk) 01:43, 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 merge to Stranger Things (TV series). MBisanz ^talk 22:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter One: The Vanishing of Will Byers[edit]

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

These articles on episodes of Stranger Things are almost identical copy-and-pasted excuses to present overlong plot summaries and IMDB-style cast lists, right down to the same review quoted at the end and the semi-literate introductory gabble "Set in 1980s, it is highly-influenced by its culture and features uncanny resemblances from 1980s film industry." While Stranger Things is self-evidently a notable recent television series, the individual episodes are not notable enough to merit individual articles. — Scott • talk 13:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've been thinking this too, but didn't feel like nominating them myself. Looks like the reviews still haven't been updated to not be a simple copy-paste, unlike the creator claimed he would, and either way, those sites tend to review every episode, so the reviews don't make the episodes individually notable. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot-heavy fancruft.TheLongTone (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eventually, the episode lists in the current Stranger Things article will need to be spun off to by-season articles, as is the case for a great many television shows. I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to having some by-episode ratings/reception information, as available, included once that happens. But even then, these articles are not the way to do it. Notably, the capsule plot summaries in the main article are appropriate; the play-by-play plots here, not so much so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While I don't think the other episodes in the series are noteworthy enough for their own individual articles, this episode, being the pilot episode, appears to be notable enough to deserve its own page. It does require changes, however, such as cleaning up any original research in its contents and removing unnecessary image files. –Matthew - (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify Matthew, are you saying keep the article for the first episode and delete the rest? Personally, I think the pilot could be discussed adequately as a section within the show article. — Scott • talk 11:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon further review, it seems like a lot of the coverage for the pilot's article is based on critical reception for the series as a whole. I agree that the pilot could be discussed sufficiently in the show's article; I sort of saw the pilot as being more important than the other episodes, as it sets up the show. –Matthew - (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG is met, and plenty of RS coverage is documented in the current article. Nothing the nominator or above delete !voters have listed above is a problem that cannot be overcome by regular editing, and so deletion is not appropriate. "Copy-paste" is inappropriately pejorative, as the text source is visually attributed and compliant with its license. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jclemens: The "RS coverage" is either about the series itself rather than the individual episodes (notability is not inherited), or from sources which simply review every episode regardless, therefore not establishing notability. And attribution is not the problem with "copy-paste", but rather having almost the same content verbatim in each article, apart from the plot summary. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Um, no. If a RS reviews an episode, that counts for the episode's notability, full stop. It really doesn't matter if they review *every* episode or focus on a few. Jclemens (talk) 06:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sure, that makes it more notable than episodes of other shows which are not reviewed at all, but it doesn't make it automatically notable. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Jclemens: Pinging again because I typoed your nick. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        The standard is significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Your comment about sites that review every episode doesn't impact that standard in any way: they're not "lesser" RS because they do, nor do they count less than others. So if multiple RS'es (that would be 2) cover an episode, it's notable, and AfD needs to note it as kept. AFTER that, editorial discussion can decide whether to merge or not, but the proposal to change "Articles for Deletion" to "Articles for Discussion" is on WP:PEREN, I believe. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jclemens (talk) 22:04, 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 01:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prune heavily and Merge, either into the parent article or a new season one episodes article. Way too much plot here. Artw (talk) 18:23, 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 22:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muck and the Mires[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

Fails WP:GNG Kleuske (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator, nothing to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muck and the Mires have added various sources including Boston Globe, NY Times, and news releases. Our page info is accurate and we will continue to work hard to add more sources in the next few days. Please do not delete our page. Thanks for your help in keeping our page on wikipedia. We welcome any additional concerns or input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 13:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really should not be editing your own page, per the conflict of interest policy. Please review that policy. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional, given the above edit by the page creator who seems to be associated with the band. 331dot (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please give us the weekend to correct any issues. We have provided reputable sources (Variety Magazine,NY Times, etc) but we will reach out to a few Wikipedia users to help corroborate our presence and notability in the US, EU and Japanese Music Markets and I will address the user name issue. Thanks so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Muckandthemires: You have sources, but they need to indicate how you meet the notability criteria for bands. Please review them, and tell us which one or ones your band meets. I again reiterate that you need to review conflict of interest and possibly the paid editing policy if you are a paid representative of the band. 331dot (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE OCTOBER 14, 2016: Thanks again for keeping our page active. I have completed my account name change. Thanks for referencing the criteria. We will continue to ask contributors to cite references In the meantime, below please see where Muck and the Mires have met the required criteria points you have outlined. https://muckandthemires.wordpress.com Thanks again for your continued help and support on this matter:

< Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).> <Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc.> < Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] >

- Muck and the Mires' song “Caught In A Lie” appeared in the History Channel’s Vietnam in HD Television Documentary seen coast coast in the USA and available on DVD:

http://www.history.com/shows/vietnam-in-hd/about Scroll towards the bottom to read the announcement of our inclusion in the film: http://www.musicxray.com/success-stories

- Muck and the Mires starred in an internationally broadcast hour long show on MTV: http://www.muckandthemires.com/MTV.html

- Muck and the Mires first release was on Little Steven Van Zandt’s record label distributed by ( then ) retail giant THe WIZ and announced on MTV news: http://www.mtv.com/news/1445236/little-steven-van-zandt-stepping-up-garage-rock-campaign/ https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/144886054/ https://www.amazon.com/Little-Stevens-Garage-Rock-Invasion/dp/B000DZGPVK

- Muck and the Mires are currently signed to Dirty Water Records (London, England) , the biggest garage rock record label in Europe. http://www.dirtywaterrecords.co.uk/releases/

- Muck and the Mires were the first group to have original music released on Germany’s large distributor SoundFlat Records http://www.soundflat.de/shop/shop.cfm?CFID=49ce057c-31be-4c02-a35d-4c8c14e200c8&CFTOKEN=0

<Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.> Reference the top link above, but one example is that Muck and the Mire have appeared on the charts of Spanish National Radio: http://blog.rtve.es/elsotano/2011/10/es-solo-rocknroll-pero-les-gusta.html http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/audios/el-sotano/sotano-the-baboon-show-muck-and-the-mires-schizophonics-25-04-16/3585084/

<received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country> Muck and the Mire have done two national tours of Italy, 6 in Spain, 12 EU, and coast to coast US. http://www.dirtyrock.info/tag/muck-and-the-mires-spanish-tour-2013/ http://www.newspettacolo.com/news/view/178693-muck_and_the_mires_usa_garage_rock_dj_set_rock_tjf_venerdi_22_aprile_2016_blah_blah_gratuito_news_torino_torino_piemonte International festivals include Bukta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukta_Tromsø_Open_Air_Festival#Artists_2009

Muck and the Mires are currently #1 rock group on Boston radio giant WMBR: http://wmbr.org/cgi-bin/track?d=20160924&g=Rock Also- Currently charting on local CBS affiliate WZLX: http://wzlx.cbslocal.com/2016/10/10/be10916/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muck of Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Muck and the Mires were the subject of a 3-page Boston Globe spread: http://muckandthemires.com/GlobeArticle8-04.jpg https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-7859248.html Muck and the Mire play all major clubs and festivals in Boston: http://bostonthroughmyeyes.com/post/24882798161 The band is also featured in this book on the history of the Boston Music scene: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sound-Our-Town-History-Boston/dp/1933212306 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muck of Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 18:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition.> Muck and the Mires won Steven Van Zandt’s (BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN/SOPRANOS) Battle of the Bands as seen on MTV and http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/11/arts/little-steven-s-big-crusade-van-zandt-uses-his-clout-to-foster-garage-rock.html http://www.providencephoenix.com/music/top/documents/04010484.asp http://www.muckandthemires.com/MTV.html

<Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.> <Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.> MTV, Spanish National Radio (See above) Muck and the Mires were subject of a Music video by award winning filmmaker Richard Jack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_C._Jack — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muck of Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify, there are no paid contributions being made here. Thanks again for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muck of Muckandthemires (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 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 01:10, 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 no consensus. Opinion is pretty evenly split, and I don't see any killer arguments on either side. I do see lots of ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT arguments on both sides. Looking mostly at the more cogent arguments, we don't seem to have the sources we should, but several of the people on the keep side assert that this person is so extraordinary that we can get by on the weak sourcing. Neither of these camps have unambiguously made their case, so No Consensus it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Butterfield[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this page for deletion seven years ago and am doing so again for two reasons. The most important one is that consensus has changed: in 2009 many argued to keep the article on the basis that being the oldest man was automatically notable. There's no Wikipedia policy or consensus that states that the oldest anything is automatically notable by the encyclopedia's standards and numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals have been kept or deleted/redirected based on their individual merits. This leads me to the second reason, which is that in seven years, it has still not been demonstrated that this individual is covered in multiple, non-trivial, third-party reliable sources as required by WP:N. Of the three sources currently on the page, one is a list (trivial), one is an obituary (not enough to sustain notability), and the third is an interest piece which adds value, but not to the point of this meriting a stand-alone article, as it could never be expanded beyond a stub unless the availability of sources is demonstrated clearly. Any material of encyclopedic merit can be included on the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia Canadian Paul 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just living longer than anyone else with good birth verification on them at the time is not enough to make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IDONTLIKEIT is irrelevant.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOTABILITYISNOTTEMPORARY. Just because a few years has went by and the article has not expanded does not indicate that notability is faded. per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or Redirect to this table where he is listed. Per WP:NOPAGE and the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject he belongs on a list. The only information you lose by placing him on a list is that he worked and had his brain analysed. Which I don't believe is enough to justify a standalone article. CommanderLinx (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Keep. The person asserting that consensus has changed has the burden of proving that true. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The link provided by the nominator to "numerous AfDs on the "oldest" individuals" shows current consensus on the topic, as does the guidance at the World's Oldest People Wikiproject page. David in DC (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I looked at the list, and I see no patterns of change. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gee, that's funny. Here are a few you may have missed when you looked at the list. In each, the argument that extraordinary longevity makes a person inherently notable was made and the article was deleted or redirected to a list anyway: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egbertje Leutscher-de Vries, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Augusta_Holtz, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonio Todde, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marie Laure du-Serre-Telmon, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Masters (2nd nomination). There a ton more on the list. David in DC (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List_of_British_supercentenarians#Chronological_list_of_the_oldest_living_person_in_the_United_Kingdom_since_1963. Notability is determined by significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. There's no such coverage here. In the alternative, the only important, encyclopedic information here is adequately covered by the list. Please see ~~WP:STANDALONE~~ WP:NOPAGE. David in DC (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The oldest man in the world is notable. 173.69.20.107 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in the notability guidelines that says "being the oldest man in the world makes you notable". Anyway, the guidelines at the WP:WOP Wikiproject tell us an article like this (only one or two sources establishing notability) belongs on a list. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (after delete) to List_of_British_supercentenarians#Chronological_list_of_the_oldest_living_person_in_the_United_Kingdom_since_1963 where the subject is already discussed. Not enough source material to build a balanced article and thus this falls under WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Worlds oldest man is notable. Over the last few years we very properly removed a considerable number of articles on minor variations of oldest person in ___ and the like, but this one is sufficiently important. DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:5. Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. This is the type of biographical information that some almanacs cover. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies. Frederick Butterfield is not only former the world's oldest man, but also one of the first recorded male supercentenarian (people who above the age of 110) and one of the earliest supercentenarian, so important. The problem of this page is being short, but not a reason to delete this page. I think Marge to List of British supercentenarians#Biographies is better.--Inception2010 (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC) This editor has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
Delete per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. I question whether two blurbs, even in good newspapers, is enough to establish notability. There's a whole lot of "world's oldest man is notable" in this thread, but not much backing that up. We don't have a notability guideline that says that, and I eagerly await sourcing that shows this guy is actually notable. So far, we haven't seen it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see that much has changed since first AfD. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with DGG that being the world's oldest man crosses a threshold of notability that "oldest man in country x" does not. It is enough to get him into the Guiness book of Records and having obits in both the Times and Guardian gets him past the GNG criteria. Yes, the details of the rest of his life are of little importance, but we choose, rightly or wrongly, not to have importance as an inclusion criteria. We have instead notability as our main criteria, and two major national quality newspapers and the world renowned Guiness book of Records have taken note of him and his life. SpinningSpark 23:30, 9 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Dutcher[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. A Google search turned up no 3rd party references at all. The link to "Secretly Spoiled" (see the "Fashion label" section) has a poor WoT report and is blacklisted by URIBL. The list at the end of "Fashion label" is only of magazines and sites where advertisements have been placed. The "External link" simply gives details of a USPTO trademark registration.
NB the article survived a WP:PROD on 25 July 2016. Narky Blert (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promo, pure and simple. Anmccaff (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:29, 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 01:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete – Source searches are providing no coverage about this subject in reliable sources at this time; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 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. Black Kite (talk) 10:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Danny D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny D

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

A BLP that does not list any reliable secondary sources outside of directory listings. "XBIZ Award - Foreign Male Performer of the Year" is the only award listed with any possible significance. The other awards are fan-based. However, the awards by themselves do not overcome lack of sources to meet GNG. At best, the article can be redirected to XBIZ Award#Foreign Male Performer of the Year.

The article was a subject of the AfD in 2014 with nomination having been withdrawn. It appears that adult entertainment biographies are coming more in line with the expectations for reliable sources, and this can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 15:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOTE: I've recently edited the article under consideration here. The subject has won several "well-known and significant industry awards" - namely the SHAFTA for "Male Performer of The Year" (twice) and the XBIZ Award for "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" (twice), which are all major awards within the adult film industry. Guy1890 (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the improvements are not convincing. The article still does not have enough meaningful bio information (for lack of secondary RS). The awards are not convincing either: SHAFTA Awards (adult video) is a fan based award, while XBIZ Award -- Best Foreign Performer is not significant and well known. In any case, the awards do not overcome the lack of sources for this BLP. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no prohibition on "fan based awards" under PORNBIO, and the XBIZ Award ceremony is one of the most "well-known" in the adult film industry (having "been compared to the Golden Globes" in the past) while the "Foreign Male Performer of the Year" award is a "significant" award category at that ceremony - akin to the "Male Performer of the Year" award, which is another major award. Guy1890 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- a new paragraph added has been added, but it's cited to award documents from the awarding organisation and directory listings, and are insufficient to meet GNG / BIO per WP:WHYN. The awards do not overcome the lack of RS; please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Vanessa Veracruz which closed as "overturn to delete". K.e.coffman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of reliable sources in this article that are independent of the subject (Danny D) here, and the recent AfD for Vanessa Veracruz doesn't apply at all here, since it basically came down to an award (the XBIZ "Girl/Girl Performer of the Year" award) that is a relatively new & likely minor niche award category. Guy1890 (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources listed are "reliable secondary sources"? I see online profiles, directory listings or award materials. A clarification would be appreciated.

Separately, I believe that the Veracruz deletion review pivoted on the fact that, apart from the award, the article did not list any secondary RS, not on the nature of the award itself (i.e. the technical SNG pass). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations currently in this article here are reliable sources. We understand that you want this article deleted (that's why you nominated it at AfD in the first place), but you really don't need to stray into bludgeoning the process at all. Guy1890 (talk) 06:00, 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 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. WP:WHYN requires that we have enough reliable independent sources so that we are able to write an NPOV article and secondary sources are specifically required. Over here the article has very little actual biographic information, nor the required sources to enable us to write that. The rest is a table of awards sourced to primary sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as completely trivial for the porn actors notability and there's nothing else beyond that suggesting a convincing article at all. SwisterTwister talk 23:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy1890. I consider his awards wins to be significant, specifically the male performer awards including the foreign ones. It's okay to have little "actual" biographical information considering these performers are hiding their actual identities behind pseudonyms. If coverage is limited to his awards and roles in movies, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...considering these performers are hiding their actual identities behind pseudonyms..." seems to suggest this being a case of WP:WHYN: there's simply not enough material to write an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you want an article to minimally include. That's why I put "actual" in quotes. There is material out there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are no "primary sources" from or related to the subject of this article under consideration here. There also appear to be plenty of reliable sources (for what they are trying to cite in the article currently, which has again been edited recently) that are independent of the subject of this article here. Guy1890 (talk) 23:43, 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, although leaning to keep, but not enough community input. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Tallman[edit]

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

It's been a while since he died, but his roles are still supporting level at most, with Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle being about the only starring role. Case Closed - Booker Kudo is supporting/sporadially recurring, same with Kodocha - Akito's father, Black Cat is supporting, Desert Punk is supporting Texas newspapers and ANN should have some obituaries but is that enough to make him Wikipedia notable? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No References to prove subject Notability.--Historical Ben (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

_{Striking vote by CU confirmed sock TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 21 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) 10:26, 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 01:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - He plays a major character (Ryuuhei Mido) in Moon Phase. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:45, 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. WP:HEY situation. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 11:28, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2016 Asian Beach Games[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG notability that would justify an independent article beyond 2016 Asian Beach Games. Fails WP:NOTSTATS. - Mr X 12:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not locate third-party coverage of this specific country in the Asia Beach games. Per nom, fails WP:GNG and should be deleted. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 16:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Firstly, Wikipedia is a work in PROGRESS. Secondly, Article contents DO NOT establish notability.

Coming back to GNG: Should I list all these sources found on a simple Google search here, to establish gng? (see also, WP:INDAFD search results).

For wp:notstats: Only #3 "Excessive listings of statistics" seems to be relevant here. I do not see anything in the article that would justify the usage of the term "excessive". What really is 'Extensive Listing of Statistics' is this one (should not be seen in context of wp:otherstuffsexist but wp:worldview). Anup [Talk] 20:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same as Pakistan at the 2016 Asian Beach Games & others. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Anup's comment, WP:GNG should not be a reason here, as this is a list of a country's participation in a continent-level sports meet, rather than an article on a specific subject. Also, sources do exist for India's involvement: [26]. AfD is not the Wikipedia cleanup department. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm working on the article. Wait at least a day for me. Thank you. Anup [Talk] 12:02, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, the article looks like a decent stub now. If 13-cited-sources are not enough to establish GNG, please click here^(English), and here^(Hindi), for more. I do not want refbomb either here or in article or anywhere. But IMO, there are literary plethora of sources to establish GNG for topic under discussion. Anup [Talk] 19:06, 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 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs improvement but deletion is not the solution to this for the reasons stated above me. WP:GNG is not really a relevant reason. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 08:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-The article has fairy improved courtesy Anupmehra (talk · contribs).It do not fails WP:GNG any more,which is the only reason which is mainly asserted in the Delete votes.Aru@baska^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 13:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Great work done by Anup in improving the article. No visible reason to delete it now. Pratyush (talk) 09:36, 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. After discounting the opinion by John G Masters for containing personal attacks, and that by 82.132.224.113 for not making an argument, we have only one credible "keep" opinion. Sandstein 07:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music News[edit]

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

Promotionally-toned and WP:PUFFERY-filled article created by belligerent SPA. Appears to be actually for promotion. I went looking for sources actually about Music News and couldn't find them. The total claim for notability is: 1. it had interviews with chart musicians (so did my 1980s fanzine with a circulation in the hundreds, and that's not Wikipedia-notable either) 2. it got a paragraph review in New Media Age (which literally compares it to a fanzine) 3. it got passing mentions as having run stories 3a. and the SPA proudly cites it as having done a bad job of doing so. There is no evidence I can find that Music News meets any of the four criteria of WP:NMAGAZINE. (My fanzine meets #2. And no, it shouldn't have an article either.) David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious keep. Since we're throwing stones (I'm an "SPA" who's edited various articles), I'll throw mine: nominator is a failed magazine writer with an agenda against publications more successful than his. WP:N is asserted, and there is absolutely no puffery or advertising, as illuminated not only by myself on the article's talk page, but by a reviewing editor.[27][28] Nominator is desperate to discredit sources, but his "passing mention" stuff doesn't stand up: two paragraphs of a five-paragraph Scotsman piece are about the site, and New Media Age was a long-running publication deemed notable by Wikipedia. John G Masters (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I realise this video is from Music News' own YouTube channel, but editor Marco Gandolfi has appeared on BBC News discussing, er, music news, if that lends his site any further credibility. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, Gandolfi appeared on BBC News, and articles from his site have served as the foundation of pieces written by the Belfast Telegraph, the Daily Express, NME and Digital Spy (Music News has been cited as a source by multiple other outlets). I don't see how notability isn't asserted. Sure, there's isn't a wealth of articles specifically about the site, but I don't recall reading too many articles published by sites, about other sites. Sites tend to write about people, events etc. John G Masters (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Magazines, periodicals, news sites etc that do pass WP:NMAGAZINE do in fact tend to have been written about in many other sources, and we have lots of articles on such that pass that bar. WP:WEBCRIT is another that might apply, but again, there's literally one source so far about Music News - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, per available sources. I was able to find 1920s' The Music News (link, but nothing on the magazine in question. I'm generally sympathetic to news media articles, and I'd be happy to review any WP:SIGCOV sources if they are available. But two paragraphs in Scotsman do not SIGCOV make. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Particularly two paras saying it's rubbish - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just meets GNG in my opinion. 82.132.224.113 (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- You just added a reprinted press release to the article as a source - David Gerard (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not sure about "just meets", given again that MN stories have served as the foundation of articles in reputable worldwide publications. As for a "press release", the added cites read like news to me. John G Masters (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more discussion required — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this is still not the needed substance we need for convincing notability and it's best Drafted for the meantime, if needed, until we can fully establish a both substantiated and larger-sourced article. SwisterTwister talk 04:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the New Media Age review, which provides significant coverage of the subject, and The Malta Independent article, which discusses Music News' launch in Malta. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 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. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 07:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Eagle's Eye (serial)[edit]

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

no indication that this subject is notable, no references given Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Considering the earliness of the serial, there's a reasonable amount of info about it[29][30][31][32] (Silentera is back?) and images.[33] Clarityfiend (talk) 06:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but because of a problem with the local Bell cable service here in Southern Ontario, where we came for the annual Thanksgiving dinner, I will not be able to access that information until we return to Ottawa, Canada's capital and my birthplace. Therefore, I am asking you to bear with me until I do revise it and not to delete it.Glammazon (talk) 07:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A serial of 20 episodes seems notable enough, and I suspect notions that it's not reflects Recentism.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If the serial survives, it should be moved to The Eagle's Eye, which is currently a redirect elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 10:05, 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 01:05, 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 merge to List of ethnic slurs. Taking this in steps:

1) We cover offensive topics. Everybody seems to agree on that.

2) Although this is well-sourced, there is wide agreement here that this is more of a WP:DICTDEF than an encyclopedia article, so keeping it as a stand-alone article is not appropriate.

3) Possible alternatives to deletion include transwikification, merging, or redirecting. Of those, transwikification has very little support, and redirect and merge are about equal.

4) The possible merge/redirect targets are jury rigging#similar phrases and list of ethnic slurs. There's a slight, but probably not statistically significant, preference for list of ethnic slurs, and I'll admit to a slight supervote to break the tie in that direction.

5) There's similarly no real consensus between merge and redirect, but once we've settled on list of ethnic slurs as the target, a redirect doesn't make sense because of the nature of that list.

6) So, calling this a limited merge, keeping the result in the style of the existing list. That probably means trimming the text somewhat, and keeping most or all of the sources, but I'll leave that up to whoever does the merge. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Afro engineering[edit]

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

Page is clearly a dictionary entry and should be deleted per WP:ISAWORDFOR after transwikiing is completed. Additionaly, the page likely falls under CSD:A5 after transwikiing is done.WannaBeEditor (talk) 06:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was extra vigilante to ensure this article was appropriate when creating it. I made sure the sourcing was adequate and even submitted it to articles for creation (pinging SwisterTwister the user who reviewed it). It could use expansion, but the concept has a specific affinity to united states linguistic history and the auto mechanic industry. I would also like to point out that I left the nominator two warnings today, and had a disagreement with them (making this seem like a revenge nomination), see User talk:WannaBeEditor#October 2016, kitchen fires, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 10#Kitchen fires.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you've raised it, I'd also add that it seems to me you "warned" the nominator and templated him inappropriately when you two simply had an honest disagreement over how best to handle a redirect. He invites you to discuss it you simply keep on templating him, which rather seems to me to be the dickish move, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Shawn in Montreal: XfD discussion notices should not be removed from a page until the discussion has concluded. The warnings were warranted. The second template was after the deletion notice was removed for the second time, which was also after they'd nominated this article for deletion. I was nothing but civil in my discussion with them, though my attempt to remedy their clear misunderstanding of certain parts of the criteria for speedy deletion was seemingly unsuccessful. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 15:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok. I see while he didn't remove the Rfd notice the second time, his edit had the same effect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Shawn in Montreal:, @Godsy: I did not intend for this to be a "revenge nomination," I just chanced upon the page when trying to evaluate who I am arguing with. To the contrary, I value Godsy's contribution to WP and hold no grudge against him. We had a simple argument over the most appropriate/efficient way to delete a redirect that I believe we both agree is unnecessary. Regarding the second removal of the notice, I indeed tried to remove the link for the specified reason, realized it breaks the template, noted it in my conversation with Godsy, and attempted to find a solution. Before I had time to make any change Godsy reverted my edit and I stopped short of edit warring. To conclude, I had no intention of edit warring, and I have no drive or reason to get revenge. At most I was slightly annoyed, I am not used to being "templated," "warned" or "threatened" both in my real life and in my WP identity. WannaBeEditor (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At best a(n Urban) Dictionary definition. Anmccaff (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regardless of the AFC process or who was pinged or what the history may be between nominator and creator, I don't see secondary coverage to raise this racial insult to the level of WP:WORDISSUBJECT, which instructs us that "articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." This is a good ref that does that. But even that's a passing and unscholarly mention in a chapter on "racetalk and classtalk." The creator doesn't help me to make my mind up on notability by merely linking to book titles, rather than the actual passages, or noting what they might be. I don't see quite enough to meet WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Godsy. Provides etymology and a history of the term. The Routledge source [34] is especially convincing that this wouldn't fall under WP:NOTDIC. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the fact that Routledge is a respected publisher, if one looks at the actual passage, it's just a brief rumination on an exchange between two warehouse workers, the eminent "Sam" and "Keith." Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 10 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) 19:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is just a definition of a racial insult (which has been euphemized but is still racist), and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just because a compound word is derived from one of the words covered in Category:Anti-African and anti-black slurs doesn't mean that it is an encyclopedic term in its own right. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the arguments for deletion, especially Metropolitan's. Springee (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of redirects, I'd have no objection to a redirect to an entry in List of ethnic slurs. We do certainly have enough WP:V for that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shawn in Montreal: These term(s) used to have an entry at jury rigging#similar phrases. The article is short enough that a full merge might even be reasonable.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly. I'm not sure I'd agree with that merge as a sufficiently similar phrase, but others might. I have used the term "jury rig" my whole life and take quite a bit of pride in my ability to jury rig. I would never say that I have 'nigger rigged' something or equate the two. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given the references present, merging it somewhere would be preferable to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -- Pls see below // Original comment: dictionary definition at best. I also found the article to be somewhat POV and / or using weasel words, as in "The terms, especially "nigger rigging", were generally considered both racist and politically incorrect towards the late 20th century forward". Um, isn't the n-word plain insulting, and not "generally" and "considered"? And was is not a racial slur in the 1950s for example? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to List of ethnic slurs. Dictionary definition. Sandstein 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be willing to take up the task of merging this somewhere. Of the targets suggested, jury rigging and list of ethnic slurs seem to have the most support at the moment, hence I'd suggest redirecting (as my second choice) this article and all its redirects to one of those as opposed to deletion.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It might be nice if it were edited for accuracy first; nearly everything in it is wrong. The term is older, and is often a backhanded compliment rather than a simple insult. It also has several other ethnic parallels. Anmccaff (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Anmccaff: I wrote the article based on the sourcing available to me. If you know of any sources that state the things you just did, please point me to them, or feel free to introduce them along with the information you stated into the text yourself.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 19:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of ethnic slurs; redirect is preferable to a merge. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. based on the sources, but move to Nigger-rigging, which seems to be the much more widely used term, because this sort ofepithet would have been much more common in earlier periods. DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 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 01:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources.--72.58.114.125 (talk) 03:43, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jury rigging or possibly list of ethnic slurs. There is history to the term, as with any word -- racist terms being among the most studied, of course -- and there may even be enough coverage to merit mentioning it as a meaningful/historical synonym, but why do we have an article for a subject, and multiple articles about racism and racial slurs, and then another article for the same subject via racial slur? Why wouldn't we cover them together? Even as a boldword in the lead, if it's quite prominent? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I think ethnic slurs can be notable, even this one. However, for this article, even the non-dictionary sources are basically giving dictionary definitions, including, what I think are the best two, Myers, Kristen A. (2005) and, Jackson, Shirley A. (2015). I'd !vote keep if more detail were given. However, I don't know how much more detail can be given without becoming OR. For instance, the term seems closely interrelated with the context of the labor industry in which the term originated, do the sources support expansion in that way? One source discussing that context is Poteet, Jim; Poteet, Lewis (1992), which seems to be a humor book and maybe self-published, so not exactly reliable. Droney, Damien (2014) is an example of convergent evolution or something, the usage here is neologistic expression used by a person from Africa to refer to the lack of resources they had when making a repair, and doesn't seem the same as the rest of the article. The other citations are expressly dictionaries or I can't access. Celock, John (2013) seems ok on usage, but just because a slur is used doesn't make it notable, I think.Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is covered a bit by sourcing, but all we have is understanding that a term exists, basically. Deletion seems like the right call for sure. I wouldn't object, though, to a proper redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:51, 11 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Detamore[edit]

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

Unremarkable musician. Also seems to be highly promotional. No indication of notability under WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Insert CleverPhrase Here 04:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As an award-winning record producer, Tommy Detamore deserves mention in Wikipedia. He received the Will Rogers Award for Record Producer of the Year in 2008,^[1] and produced and mastered numerous top-ten hits on the Americana and Texas Music charts, including the album "Touchstones" for James Talley,^[2] Dallas Wayne's album "Songs The Jukebox Taught Me",^[3]^[4]^[5] and the number one singles "Lucky Arms"^[6] and "Your Heart Turned Left (& I Was on the Right)" for Jason Allen^[7]. Updated to include specific number one song references --Aurinkojo (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurinkojo (talk • contribs) 04:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Updated to include additional citations. Aurinkojo (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Aurinkojo (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Detamore engineered and performed on a Grammy-nominated “Best Country Instrumental” song, Bill Kirchen’s “Poultry in Motion”.^[8] ^[9] --Aurinkojo (talk) 16:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There will simply need to be better 3rd party references to validate the claims above. Not saying these aren't legit credits, but lacking outside, 3rd party sources we cannot verify notability. The references provided here are mostly user generated/submitted, online databases, blogs, etc. that prove existence, but not notability. The sole valid one here is from the Austin Chronicle, but the article is about Doug Sahm, not Detamore, whose presence in the article is tangential. If someone can add better, independent sources in significant number I'll gladly change my vote. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a record producer and musician, Detamore has significantly contributed to countless live and recorded performances, as verified by allmusic.com credits: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/tommy-detamore-mn0000612585/credits. He engineered, mixed and produced the Doug Sahm album "The Return of Wayne Douglas" ^[1], the quality of which is mentioned in this article ^[2] as the reason that James Talley chose Detamore to produce his album "Touchstones" ^[3], which reached the top ten on the national Americana music chart. He is very well-respected as a musician and producer by his peers. ^[4]Aurinkojo (talk) 03:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Additional Third-party Reviews & Commentary:

http://nodepression.com/album-review/clay-blaker-rumor-town

https://www.austinchronicle.com/music/2000-06-23/77687/

http://nodepression.com/article/review-gary-nicholson-texas-songbook-bismeaux-2011

http://nodepression.com/article/notsxsw-2010-grilled-squid-kids-sheep-siberian-express

http://nodepression.com/article/brennen-leigh-music-texas-hill-country

http://steelguitarforum.com/Archives/Archive-000003/HTML/20011227-1-011047.html

Aurinkojo (talk) 02:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions don't establish notability. Articles require Significant coverage from independent, Reliable sources. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yet none of these articles are about Detamore. Being name checked in print does not constitute significant coverage. You may be missing the point: no one would argue that he is not a talented, respected, sought after figure in his industry. That is true of many other people, as well. What is lacking are sources that indicate he is notable beyond the ordinary, per wikipedia criteria. A list of credits in Allmusic merely conveys existence. A Will Rogers Award for record producing is not a significant music industry award, per our criteria. A Grammy nomination could be considered notable if it were in one of the major categories. If he is indeed notable it should be easy to find numerous third party media about him, not merely the projects he has worked on or people he is associated with. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fluffy, sources brought up here are not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - originally I was going to !vote otherwise, based on being "just" a producer, but then I looked at his credits. He has quite the list of appearances as a studio musician, playing (steel) guitar for such luminaries as Mickey Dolenz, Dallas Wayne, James Talley, Hazzard, etc. He is NOT your average studio musician. He passes WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under what specific criteria does he pass WP:MUSICBIO? Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:42, 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 01:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. BTW, Aurinkojo is a vote-stacker and he created the page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 02:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, I agree that the sources don't exactly fit what is required. In-depth coverage even by local sources would be better. The material from "Third-party Reviews & Commentary" could be woven into the article to improve it. I would change my !vote if the sources were a bit more solid, as he seems to have had a sustained career. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:08, 8 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.