The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Family Guy (season 15). (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Family Guy[edit]

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

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that is cited contains a brief overview of the season rather than providing coverage of the episode about which the article is written. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are articles for almost all Family Guy episodes, but if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, just redirect. There is no reason to delete a page that is a possible search term. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked about my response on my talk page, so I'd like to rephrase. What I mean to say is that this redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to Family Guy (season 15). We shouldn't delete this page, which is helpful to the encyclopedia, but just redirect and avoid wasting editors' time by extending this discussion for too long. I hope this clarifies my thoughts a bit, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). I had already done this per WP:BOLD and a similar discussion, but it was reverted.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 13:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). Much like in the other recent discussion that Molandfreak brought up above, there is nothing to indicate that this specific episode has any independent notability. The article is nothing but plot, and the only sources available are nothing but previews or plot summaries of the episode. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). As others have noted, this lacks any hint of independent notability and the sourcing is terrible.--NukeofEarl (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Not notable however readers may search for the term. MartinJones (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 00:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Family Guy (season 15). Kurykh (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Has Got a Date, Date, Date, Date, Date[edit]

Chris Has Got a Date, Date, Date, Date, Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article fails to demonstrate the notability of the subject: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The one source that is cited contains a brief overview of the season rather than providing coverage of the episode about which the article is written. Eddie Blick (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are articles for almost all Family Guy episodes, but if there's not enough coverage to justify a standalone article, just redirect. There is no reason to delete a page that is a possible search term. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was asked about my response on my talk page, so I'd like to rephrase. What I mean to say is that this redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to Family Guy (season 15). We shouldn't delete this page, which is helpful to the encyclopedia, but just redirect and avoid wasting editors' time by extending this discussion for too long. I hope this clarifies my thoughts a bit, thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 03:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). I had already done this per WP:BOLD and a similar discussion, but it was reverted.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 13:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Family Guy (season 15). Just like the other FG episode articles that have come up on AFD recently, this article has no sources that indicate that it has independent notability. It is nothing but a plot summary, and the only sources available are similarly nothing but plot summaries. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect I'm in agreement with the sensible comments above. I can see no benefit to full deletion over a redirect but this is not a notable topic. MartinJones (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

宗 also known as .[edit]

宗 also known as . (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG, AFAICT. Searching the nom de plume proves difficult, since the character and '.' occur frequently in unrelated articles. No real name given. The article's tone is promotional, but not "unambiguous advertising" and a somewhat credible claim of relevance is made. Hence AfD. Kleuske (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Couldn't find anything on google other than the artist's facebook and twitter page. Fails GNG. Bennv3771 (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced BLP. Cabayi (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The author is a newcomer - I have added a welcome and ProdwarningBLP to their talk page - will see if they can add any references that infer notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:TNT, also known as enough said. Bearian (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all of the above reasons! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly not something which should be included. MartinJones (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - agree with nominator. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lois Rice[edit]

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

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

The General Notability Guideline has not been met. The coverage I was able to find is split between two categories: coverage related to her death, and coverage related to her daughter. I would propose merging to the article about her daughter Susan Rice but she's not even mentioned in it. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep or Merge: Her supposed involvement with Pell Grant seems to indicate notability, to an extent at least. In addition to this, she is the spouse of a notable person. RoCo^(talk) 22:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being the spouse (or mother) of a notable person isn't a reason to keep an article. Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, which is why I ended the claim of notability before that sentence. Pell Grant involvement, however, seems to suggest something. RoCo^(talk) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - GNG is met spectacularly well with sources found in just the shortest of google searches [1] [2] [3] [4]. If obituaries aren't pay-for content but are independently composed features, they count as reliable and significant. Yvarta (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, like I said in the nomination, the coverage is all about her death, with passing mentions about her being Susan Rice's mother. There's nothing else. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused Exemplo347 - beyond being obituaries, how are they about her death? If you read the articles, her death is mentioned only in one or two sentences, and the rest is about her life and accomplishments. If she was murdered horribly or died in an unusual way and the articles reflected that, then I might agree with you. Yvarta (talk) 00:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"How are obituaries about her death?" Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing my point, Exemplo347. They address her death, yes, but that is not their only topic - these are not paid obituaries placed as advertisements for a funeral: they came out after her death because her death spurred the new attention. If they had been spurred by a firing from a major company, but still focused on her and not the firing in great detail, then they would be about her, not the central event that led to the media coverage. Yvarta (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, due to Pell Grant connection.Unschool 03:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant obituaries in multiple national newspapers seems to meet basic criteria for notability.Glendoremus (talk) 05:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having a long in-depth piece run on your death in WSJ and NYT (and several other places) is a clear sign of your significance. Besides that, a BEFORE here should be done. For instance I found the following two pieces from 70s in NYT - [5] (on her marriage (which was covered since both parties were significant) - added to article) and [6] (didn't add - long opinion piece by her). There's probably plenty more in print archives - just need to look under the right names.Icewhiz (talk) 12:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mwinog2777 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WSJ and NYT editorial obits clearly show notability.--Jahaza (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government efficiency[edit]

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

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

In the article's current state, it probably needs some WP:TNT. This list has apparently only had one entry since at least 2011, and the title of the article doesn't match the current content of the article: A sole, statistical entry for the United States. Steel1943 (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Government waste as a reasonable target, but that article probably could use some WP:TNT too... – Train2104 (t • c) 00:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. An article could certainly be created,[7][8][9][10] but this sorry stub isn't it. Also, no such animal has ever been observed in the wild. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. While an article could, in theory, be created, this isn't it. Right now, it's a tiny stub of a fork of Government waste, to which it could be redirected in the good judgment of the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cline (Recording Engineer)[edit]

Chris Cline (Recording Engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability as an academic or a recording engineer. One source, published by his employer. —C.Fred (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - as an A7 There is no indication of importance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmedema (talk • contribs) 23:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (not speedy) - I found the UTSA source, but that's about the extent of it. I wouldn't even redirect, given the disambiguation term in the title. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for inclusion. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No significant reliable coverage.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Issues with the page can be discussed at the article talk page. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Rebel (singer)[edit]

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

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

Reason Seamus45 (talk) 20:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why this page celebrating an otherwise unknown racist bigot is even in Wikipedia. I was under the impression that to qualify for an entry, the subject must be a person of some distinction or renown. Before I came across this entry, I had never heard of this individual before, and I doubt if anyone else (outside of perhaps members of a white power movement) has heard of him either.

This piece seems like an encomium to this person, or at the least a normalization of his “philosophy” - if that word can be used in conjunction with whatever passes for thought processes in such people.

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep No valid deletion rationale has been provided. This is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Having a Wikipedia article is not a question of whether we approve of what the person is notable for or not — racists and bigots do get into Wikipedia if they were the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG. The fact that Wikipedia has an article on somebody does not mean that we endorse them; it just means people might be looking for the information. If you have concerns with the article's tone, flag it for WP:NPOV, and no prejudice against renomination in the future if somebody can provide more compelling evidence that it's not suitable for some reason (e.g. he's just namechecked within the cited sources rather than being their subject) — but we don't delete articles just because some or most editors don't like the person. We don't have to like the reasons why someone is notable — but we do have to accept that some people are notable for bad reasons. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lariss[edit]

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

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

No real indication of notability, as defined by WP:MUSICBIO. Two of the sources are tabloid trash – one a not very quotable interview, the other a promotion for her video. This is a PR-type thing, and in any case is about the G Girls. This tells us she won some prize at the Media Music Awards (note the red link) – the trouble is, there's no hint that that might be a "major music award", as contemplated by point 8 of the guideline. Rounding out the "sources" is this pure puffery from a radio station. A flavor: "like any artist with potential, Lariss started singing at age seven; there followed a long series of participations in olympiads and competitions, ending with diplomas and trophies".

One final point: the lead alleges that her main song was charted in all sorts of places. The source, such as it is, simply doesn't attest that. It says merely that she "is successful" in several countries, which could mean anything. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Seems WP:TOOSOON. No significant coverage, just bits here and there which is common with early development. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it fails WP:MUSICBIO. Media Music Awards is an important music award in Romania. Also Lariss has been placed in rotation nationally by multiple major radios and music TV channels; + her song "Dale Papi" is in top 10 Romania's 2015 end-year chart[11]. Some 3-5 MUSICBIO criterias are meet. XXN, 09:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't actually know that Media Music Awards (again, note the red link) is important. Neither do we know about the national rotation. As for the chart claim, the fact is that Romanian Top 100, which closed in 2012, was the last official Romanian chart. While Media Forest does have a chart, it has no recognized standing outside itself. So I remain of the opinion that the claim to notability is rather thin. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a red link on Wikipedia means nothing [for us]; Wikipedia it's not a reliable source for itself. About the importance of Media Music Awards you can read here or here, or their self-presentation: [12][13]. Other top medias also wrote about Media Music Awards, and the top artists and bands didn't ignored these awards - one more indication on award's reliability. Perhaps, Media Music Awards is even above the Romanian Music Awards (RMA is organized by an single music TV channel; MMA analyzes the rotations on multiple radio stations, including Kiss FM, Europa FM, Magic FM, Pro FM, Radio 21, Radio Zu, National FM, and Radio Romania Actualitati, +TV stations 1 Music Channel, Kiss TV, MTV Romania, and UTV). About MediaForest as an official country chart we can't say certainly that it's unrecognized; probably nobody yet searched about this. XXN, 17:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course we don't have articles on every notable topic, but the fact that sixteen years into our existence, and with articles on dozens and dozens of music awards, this one is missing, is at least of passing interest. However, even if we tentatively accept that the ceremony is significant, I still wonder whether "best new artist" (as opposed to best female/best male) really counts as a "major music award" (point 7), especially when no independent media reported on this in any kind of depth. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agnivesh Jyotiraditya[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:AUTHOR, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*ARTICLE TO BE KEPT Very appropriate article about a unique achiever which undoubtedly needs to be kept .

1. Notability - in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines several significant secondary references are given which are independently verifiable and cannot be ignored. The newspapers and media cited in the article are prominent leading newspapers in the country with millions of readers. ( kindly note that Wikipedia has retained many pages with trivial references with titles Revathi Thirunal Balagopal Varma, Vidhubala, Science Olympiad Foundation, Kumar Padmanabh Singh etc where no one has nominated those for deletion and here this article about a young achiever itself is unique and motivational)

2 notability - guidelines state a person winning multiple awards for his works is notable and this article satisfies that clause also (along with other guidelines) with the list of awards and works given.

3. Author- the guideline for category author is adhered to successfully as the person's works are a part of the Don Bosco Museum and Cebtre of indegenous cultures which is a prominent museum in India and is displayed there and has been cited in leading newspapers .

4. The topic is well notable and attracts wide attention and a Google search on the topic itself produces numerous links and news that shows the significance and notability of the same.

5. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia for common man to easily search for topics that he needs and such a highly searched topic is very much relevant here .

6. The topic itself inspires many like me due to the various fields of work undertaken by a youngster and the article ould be also considered as a special case for notability and relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Faith (talk • contribs) 09:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC) — Noble Faith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete The "reliable sources" are local special interest coverage that do not show the type of coverage we expect from actual reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• strongly recommend to keep the article

The resources cited are not local but prominent newspapers which have wide circulation in different parts of India and not confined to a region alone. It's wrong to say with special interest when coverage comes in media from different parts of the country. No national museum will display works that is not competent enough. It is a very much relevant and significant article that deserves to be kept with more than 15 resources that are prominent newspapers of the country and not to be accused of special interest! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fan in Awe (talk • contribs) 08:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The entry about the young achiever is inspirational and authentic. Many well known references.It is worth being kept in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:630A:F35E:2C11:36F6:972C:346E (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Authentic article quoting reliable resources. Strongly recommended to keep. Great achievements for a young kid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.254.67 (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nomination. The article itself is a breathless collection of non-verifiable or barely verifiable facts. Youngest black belt in the world indeed.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (but open to being swayed if there's proof of award significance, bestseller, other key evidence of notability) - There are a few sources, but not enough to be considered "significant" and a news show that back up the points in the article, but the "best selling" part is hard to substantiate. I'm not finding what organization may have considered him a best-seller - and I cannot find an authority/identity record for him, except perhaps this "sparse" VIAF record under Monu. I don't find an authority/identity under his birth name. I am not finding information that the awards are particularly notable, except perhaps "Kamala Surayya Award" which is listed as an award under List of Malayalam literary awards, but I cannot find an independent source saying he won that award. Although he sounds to be quite a talented boy, I am not finding enough to establish notability at this time. This is possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jamot[edit]

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

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG. Sitush (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - Modern sources exist, but they don't seem to say anything but that this tribe is one of a list of tribes and that the Kalhora tribe may related. Not enough for a NOR, NPOV article, I think. Nor is there a clear destination for a redirect (Sindhis and Baloch people are two options, though). Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:27, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails GNG; not opposed to a redirect if appropriate Spiderone 09:17, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Jain[edit]

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

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

Appears to be a WP:1EVENT candidate. It looks as if the article was created by the article's subject. The event is a Twitter retweet by the Prime Minister. reddogsix (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

• Comment - This article is about a Social media entrepreneur who is not just limited to a single event but multiple events.

The Indian Prime Minister retweeted and followed back the person which has happened for the first time in Indian history when PM followed back a common man. This was due to the initiative taken by his family of promoting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Swachh Bharat (Clean India) initiative by using the logo on wedding invitation. It has instantly made the person highly popular over social media, print media and electronic media. There are over 300+ strong and high quality evidences which can be found here : https://www.google.co.in/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=M1blWPSIJ_Lx8AePxKT4Bg&gws_rd=ssl#q=akash+jain+Modi&start=0&*

The biggest news sites starting from Times of India, Yahoo, Indian express, Aajtak, India TV, Dainik Bhaskar, NDTV, ANI and many more, everyone have reported the whole story of a common man becoming the internet sensation. Even the google news has been picking up the entire story : https://news.google.com/news/story?hl=en&ned=en_pk&ncl=dWaeHvOraNo8CzMn2CGeSGYxKD8oM&lr=en&rfilter=0&q=akash+jain&btnC=Go

Akash Jain has also been into social media activities with previous Indian cricket captain Mahendra Singh Dhoni, Indian bollywood actor Aamir Khan. He has been associated with branding for Ford Cars as well. This article is not just limited to single event. It talks about the whole activity of the person in the domain of social media.

This category already lists the Indian Internet celebrities who emerged strongly from Social media : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Internet_celebrities

The page should remain active as it showcases a 'internet celebrity and social media entrepreneur' and it should not be deleted.' Akash207 (talk)

Few more references :

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-meet-this-bengaluru-man-who-is-followed-by-pm-modi-on-twitter-2381610 http://www.inkhabar.com/national/38925-pm-modi-followed-akash-jain-after-seeing-special-wedding-card ::::v http://indianexpress.com/article/trending/trending-in-india/narendra-modi-followed-this-man-on-twitter-after-he-posted-a-swachh-bharat-wedding-card-4598975/ http://telugudaily.net/news/prime-minister-narendra-modi-follows-unknown-bengaluru-entrepreneur-twitter/ ::::v http://www.abplive.in/india-news/nothing-can-be-bigger-than-this-know-why-pm-narendra-modi-is-following-this-man-on-twitter-513291 ::::v https://www.kolkata24x7.com/akash-jain-is-followed-by-modi-in-tweeter.html http://www.ibtimes.co.in/modi-follows-back-bengaluru-man-twitter-do-you-know-why-722011 http://www.news18.com/news/india/man-borrows-swachh-bharat-logo-for-sisters-wedding-pm-modi-follows-him-on-twitter-1368584.html http://www.livehindustan.com/news/national/article1-prime-minister-narendra-modi-follows-akash-jain-know-why-769710.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash207 (talk • contribs)

• Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. Being associated with Indian cricket does not make one notable , notability is not inherited. Nor does branding just about any product, this is WP:ROUTINE. There are far from "300+ Google hits. A Google search of "akash jain" Modi tweet" shows only 73 - far less than the "300+" you propose - this number also includes many hits unrelated to the event. reddogsix (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 17:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This violates not news. People do not become notable just because one tweet by them gets retweeted by someone notable. We need more sustained coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Dear reddogsix & johnpacklambert,

This article is about the subject becoming an indian internet celebrity WP category - Indian Internet Celebrities) after his content went viral on social media which was not only picked up by Indian Prime minister but the whole of online media, print media, TV Media and social media. The viral content has got over 9K favourites, 3K retweets. It has become for the first time in India that a common man has been followed back by the prime minister on Social Media.

The wiki definition of Internet celebrity on wiki says someone who has become famous by means of the Internet. The wiki category Indian Internet celebrities features people who became overnight sensations after a single event. There are already many subject articles around such topic. If the event was unsustainable or small, not every media would have picked up the story. The WP:OneEvent also says that "However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified."

reddogsix : Below is the list of initial set of about 70-80 references of the same story with single keyword searched on google. If you search with different keywords in different languages on all platforms, you can find all 300+ stories.

Akash207 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - To correct you, it is not just a single retweet or follow back. It is the effect of that action which trigged discussion and popularity in entire nation including all media platforms. What falls under Indian Internet celebrities? There are many articles under that category who became popular due to single event. This article revolves around the same theme. Akash207 (talk)

• Keep - The subject has gained instant internet popularity on social media and internet due to the whole swachh bharat idea when narendra modi followed him back on twitter. it falls under internet celebrity category. may be some modifications on page but article should stay. Saregamapa (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)— Ashvin 1351 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment - Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as, despite wide coverage, this is a case of WP:BLP1E. Narendra Modi following a "common man" on Twitter (of all things) is no reason to write an article on them. Modi follows over 1,500 people on Twitter, and since many of them would be "ordinary" citizens, should we allow articles on each and every one of them? At best, the article can be merged with the one on Swachh Bharat Abhiyan (perhaps under a new "reactions" section). — Stringy Acid (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - PM Modi doesn't follow common man. The reason for the wide coverage is because for the first time he retweeted and followed a common man which became a house hold topic in entire India and media. There is a wiki category named Indian Internet Celebrities. There are people who became overnight popular due to single big event. Akash207 (talk)

The (very brief) coverage on Akash Jain lasted less than a week, which is hardly enough time for it to be a "household topic" in a country with population over a billion. Do you have any evidence for the claim that this is the "first time" Modi retweeted a "common man's" tweet? And what's your definition of "common man"? Also see WP:OTHERSTUFF -- just because there are articles similar to this one doesn't mean that this ought to be included. (On another note, I'm surprised by the amount of sockpuppets casting their votes in this AfD.) — Stringy Acid (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Apart from being WP:1E, the author is likely to have WP:COI , and is also likely canvassing and voting here as a neutral voter. The article clearly has self promotional purpose.ChunnuBhai (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Every bit of the article has been provided with supportive reference. It talks about the subject and the event happened. Akash207 (talk)

• Comment - The referencing is not the issue. Again, he is known for a single event. Being a "Social media entrepreneur," in itself, does not make one notable for a Wikipedia article, nor does being retweeted. "Real-world" does not equal Wikipedia based notability. reddogsix (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete--A case of one event notability.Winged Blades ^Godric 13:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fatma Hatun (wife of Şehzade Bayezid)[edit]

Fatma Hatun (wife of Şehzade Bayezid) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article doesn't cite any sources, and it seems to be a fabricated article like dozens of other articles that had been created before. There's no mention of her on her alleged husband's article as well. I have no prejudice to recreation if it can be done with reliable sources but I doubt there's any mention of her on historical books. Keivan.f^Talk 20:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No source supporting the article, dubious existence given the context of the epidemic of invented articles about the Ottoman family.--Phso2 (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I was able to find sources mentioning her alleged husband and children, including daughters, none of them supported even the mere existence of Fatma/Fatima herself ("Hatun" is but a noble title, so disregard that). Images of her supposed burial place, Melik-i Acem, only show 4 tombs. According to a sign outside however ("Şehzadeler Kanuni Sultan Süleyman'ın oğlu Bayezid ve oğulları Osman, Orhan, Abdullah burada metfundur."), these belong to Bayezid and his three sons. Considering the position of women at the time and the fact that the article stays vague about her origin, I doubt that there are sources about her; maybe passing mentions at best if she does turn out real, but nothing to support an in-depth encyclopedic entry—i.e. fails WP:GNG. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails NOR. No prejudice to recreation, as Keivan.f says, even if sources are Turkish and/or offline, but there just isn't anything clearly supporting this article, and none online that I/other commentors so far can find it seems. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete as OR. If there were no doubts about its veracity, I might have suggested merging to her husband. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment: via wikidata, I found out that the article's Turkish counterpart was deleted via tr:Vikipedi:Silinmeye aday sayfalar/Fatma Haseki Sultan. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rümeysa Hatun[edit]

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

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

The article is completely unsourced, and the subject doesn't seem to be notable as merely being married to a prince doesn't make her a prominent figure. If the article can be rewritten with reliable sources, we can keep it, otherwise it should be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 20:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No source supporting the article, dubious existence given the context of the epidemic of invented articles about the Ottoman family.--Phso2 (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've yet to see a reputable source about the subject. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Brahmakshatriya. Redirect to better target which covers this more indepth. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murdhabhishikta[edit]

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

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

WP:NOTDICT - more suited for Wikitionary. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 19:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Brahmakshatriya, where it's given as a synonym. – Uanfala (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information Object Model[edit]

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

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

I cannot seem to find any standard use for this term. Regardless of that, the usage here appears to me to be obviously invented by the original creator of the article. Note, for example, that the original creator is Maxtsai and the name of the owner of the github user linked on the page is "Max Tsai". It is my understanding that the original author's intention was to create an article for the API that he was in the process of creating. I could not find mentions of the terms "Information Storytelling Engine" and "Information Storytelling Framework" outside of this article. Sjrct (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not notable, fails WP:GNG. ~barakokula31 (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This seems to be a specific one-developer project, where Wikipedia is used as a substitute for Github's own wiki page, probably in the hope of gaining increased exposure. Needless to say that's not what Wikipedia is for. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is not an easy discussion to close. A good case could be made for closing this as No Consensus, but due to the open questions about possible WP:COPYVIO and meeting WP:V, I'm going to go with delete. Both of those are fundamental, inviolable, policies.

There's some pending research and translation efforts. If this hadn't already seen three relists and been open for more than a month, I would relist it to give those time to get finished. But, I think at this point we need some kind of closure. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iio Tazu[edit]

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

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

Article discusses a fictional character but the references don't reflect this. Almost definitely copyright infringement from http://koei.wikia.com/wiki/Tazu_Iio . May not be notable. EDIT: May not be entirely fictional, but no indication of real presence either. RoCo^(talk) 17:40, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Japanese wiki article (jp:お田鶴の方) makes it clear she is a real figure, though it notes the various versions of her story. The article is relatively well referenced, though it uses a lot of Edo era texts that are not easy to check. Michitaro (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Michitaro: Well, the first reference did not mention her name, so I thought it wasn't reliable. But what about the copyright infringement. I will withdraw this nomination if it's found to be clear of any copyright violation. RoCo^(talk) 13:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably keep -- Since precise dates are given, I take this to be history, not fiction. Assuming COPYVIO issues do not arise, this relates to an incident of history. I know far too little of Japan to know whether or not this was a notable series of events. If kept, the article needs a lead section to take the reader into the subject, rather than plunging straight inot the midst of events. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• TNT Delete While the subject may or may not have existed, the current content is not at all verifiable (and no good version to go back too). It has been entirely copied from Wikia and the sources in the article do not mention anything about the subject. I am unable to find sources. This is ripe for a TNT which will probably allow an interested editor to start again. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Whether the individual is fictional or real is irrelevant. Likewise, COPYVIO is a good reason to blank a page but not to delete it, because the same source could be paraphrased. The only thing that matters is whether the subject has received significant direct coverage in reliable sources (notability and verifiability as per Lemongir). On this I don't see enough of either as-is, but lack knowledge of the subject area to know if this isn't just an article on a notable subject in need of improvement or if it merits going away. Agricolae (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong DELETE- Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. The subject of the article does not appear to be notable nor do the references seem to establish notability. Both WP:GNG and WP:BASIC require require the subject to have received "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.". Neither of the references seem to meet these requirements.

• reference 1 - Women Warriors of Japan: Early History is a a promotional site to sell books and not useful for establishing notability. See "Vendor and e-commerce sources".
• reference 2 - I was unable to find Otatsu-no-Kata in "Samurai Women 1184-1877" - perhaps she may be referred to under another name although there is very little text about the time period in the 16th century prior to 1573.

Although wikipedia articles can not be used to establish notability per WP:WPNOTRS and WP:USERG. the Japanese wiki article mentioned in a previous comment doesn't appear to be the same person (jp:お田鶴の方). This article states that her spouse is Rinao Iioo [[[:jp:飯尾連竜]]], and the Riano Iioo lists お田鶴の方 as his spouse. I have been unable to find appropriate sources to establish notability in either English or Japanese. CBS527^Talk 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - I have struck through my previous concern about the Japanese article appearing to be about a different person based on Curly Turkey translation below, I am satisfied that it is the same person. CBS527^Talk 03:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe jp:飯尾連龍 is Iio Tsuratatsu, the husband listed in our English article of Iio Tazu. I believe this to be correct because I took the Japanese characters listed in the English article for Iio Tsuratatsu, specifically "飯尾 連竜" and entered them into the Japanese Wikipedia search engine [14] and jp:飯尾連龍 came up, and the date of death is within one year. I think it is the same person. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Iio Tazu (aka Otatsu no Kata). The Japanese article jp:お田鶴の方 (Towards Tazuru) whose spouse is listed as jp:飯尾連竜 (Riaqno Iioo). His article also lists her as his spouse as well. The subject of this AFD is Iio Tazu and the subject's husband is listed as Iio Tsuratatsu. CBS527^Talk 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese article gives the pronunciation of jp:飯尾連竜 as Inō Tsuratatsu. His father ja:飯尾乗連 is also given as Inō. The article for the clan ja:飯尾氏 gives three pronunciations: Iinō, Inō, and Iio—it doesn't indicate whether you could use any pronunciation, or whether different branches used different pronunciations, or whatever. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:33, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Curly Turkey ! That clears up the doubt I had. CBS527^Talk 03:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP per [15] (added 00:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)) and possibly per Japanese article (jp:お田鶴の方) and her husband's article (jp:飯尾連龍). I believe it is the correct husband based on the date of death. If someone speaking Japanese could look into this, that would help. I think I know who to ask. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Hijiri88: You can read Japanese, right? Can you help us figure this out? There are some questions about what the corresponding Japanese articles are and whether there is sufficient WP:RS in Japanese or elsewhere to justify the article (and probably also the husband's article too). --David Tornheim (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Although we can't use Wikipedia articles to establish notability, the article may lead to some valid sources. CBS527^Talk 21:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to @Curly Turkey: It is my understanding you read Japanese. Can you help us figure this out? If not, can you refer us to someone else who might be qualified? There are some questions about what the corresponding Japanese articles are and whether there is sufficient WP:RS in Japanese or elsewhere to justify the article (and probably also the husband's article too). --David Tornheim (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the sources are in classical Japanese (of which I have only rudimentary skills) or even kanbun (which I've never tried learning), so it's hard for me to assess, but I'd be very surprised if she didn't pass notability, based on what I do see. A lot of the sources are print-only. I live in Shizuoka (the modern prefecture where she lived), so I'd probably be able to get hold of a lot of them. The problem is motivation ...

I'll tell you what. I'm going to the library tomorrow anyways, so I'll take a look for a couple of sources I can handle to add to the article to save it from deletion. I'd say she most likely has listings in a couple of dictionaries of historical figures at least. I doubt I'll have the motivation to put much more work than that into it, though. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Perhaps, the IP editor who created the article will be at the library too?  :) --David Tornheim (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I'm gonna have to apologize, but it's absolutely pissing rain today, so I'm skipping stopping by the library. I'll probably go next Thursday. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I left this note on the originating IP's talk page and a similar note on another IP that also edited similar articles. Seems like that IP made a bunch of articles like this one with insufficient sourcing. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I also requested Bueller 007 who is fluent in Japanese and English to translate the "お田鶴の方". article, which seems to be fairly well sourced, to see if it the same person and if it could be useful for this AFD. I asked for him to respond here. CBS527^Talk 01:19, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Even if notability has been established, the article would need a complete overhaul (could potentially be nuked) to ensure copyright compliance. RoCo^(talk) 07:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four-letter abbreviation[edit]

Four-letter abbreviation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This isn't a proper thing. Article with no sources. It has three sentences; one is a dictionary definition (and a fairly obvious one at that); and two are wisecracks that, in addition to not being encyclopedic, are original research. Amisom (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Fwiw, the longer version of this article said that it had relevance in computer code, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not encyclopedic, not notable, no significant references, something somebody just made up one day.Glendoremus (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:MADEUP indeed! Amisom (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- It's close to a recursive acronym, and lo and behold, we already have an article on that. It's not worth a redirect, though. Certainly no notability in and of itself. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 07:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the term "Four Letter Abbreviation" does come up in searches, the results are pretty much only in the context of talking about things that happen to be acronyms with four letters, and not any sort of overarching concept like the article tries to claim. I'm not sure if this article was completely WP:MADEUP, but it certainly is not notable. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Page was speedy-deleted by Nyttend (G12). (non-admin closure) NewYorkActuary (talk) 03:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NAFSTS[edit]

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

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

Obscure student organization. All references are from the organization's own website. Fails WP:GNG. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — Stringy Acid (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, with no substantial coverage from reliable independent sources. I've also nominated the article for speedy deletion for copyright infringement from http://nafstsnational.com.ng/about-us . The article had already had this material removed (i.e., revdel'd), but it keeps reappearing. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RoCo^(talk) 09:45, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK Golf[edit]

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

(Find video game sources: "OK Golf" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Subject of the article is unremarkable. Not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. RoCo^(talk) 17:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article is not in the greatest shape (and is named incorrectly - should be OK Golf), but it has been reviewed by at least three sources deemed reliable by WikiProject Video games: Pocket Gamer, Touch Arcade, and Gamezebo, and received some further coverage from Touch Arcade and Gamezebo. I believe this might be just enough to meet the general notability guideline.--IDV^talk 09:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with IDV, the article is in pretty bad shape, but the references provided show that it is notable. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. czar 16:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reviews in the article and others listed at Metacritic are already enough to pass WP:NVG. And I have moved the article to OK Golf per IDV's suggestion. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malacca Al-Quran Museum[edit]

Malacca Al-Quran Museum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG. Nothing in gnews for its English or Malay name LibStar (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per reasons discussed at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth Museum (closed "no consensus to delete") and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Museo de Sabanero (ongoing). wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. wp:BEFORE (and searching gnews is insufficient). --doncram 19:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

you have given zero reasons as to how a notability guideline is met. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You comment on every comment that doesn't agree with you. What a waste of time. --doncram 23:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You do not deter me one bit. I will point out the weaknesses of your arguments every time. Again you fail to demonstrate significant coverage to meet notability. Your arguments are turning into WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ILIKEIT.LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- is this a state-run museum? K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not sure. its website is now a dead link. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the museum is big in size, developed by the state government, located within the compound of the state mosque area. It can be found in the local-language online news website, as well as with other 2 references. The article is heavily interlinked with other articles.Chongkian (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

museum being "big" is itself not a criterion for notability. 2 sources confirm who developed it and the third is its own website. I do not see significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources given by Chongkian and the one I added to the article. The museum is notable in my opinion. Altamel (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Sabanero[edit]

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

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

fails WP:ORG. Nothing in gnews. Only a travel guide provided as a source. No corresponding Spanish article. LibStar (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a public attraction. Museums, except the most obscure private ones not regularly open, art going to be Wikipedia-notable. There may be a string of odd AFDs going on. At another museum afd recently, the nominator there (whether same editor or not) bizarrely also claimed google news is the right way to tell if a museum is notable, which is nonsense. Actually we should hope museums are not in the news for a fire or scandal; most are not. Wp:BEFORE has not been performed here. --doncram 18:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museums are not inherently notable. Again you provide zero reasoning not sources to establish notability. You're saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it was Libstar who nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaysia Youth Museum, which closed no consensus to delete, who bizarrely searched only in Google News. wp:BEFORE. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. Also you don't have to reply to every comment that does not agree with you. --doncram 23:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we are here to discuss how this museum meets notability guidelines, not the notability of other articles. You have failed to do this. You have not deterred me in fact given me more motivation to find non notable examples. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I searched under multiple terms and the best I can find is this book source which is not enough to show notability. SL93 (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep: Per new sources. SL93 (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have found and added multiple sources to the article, along with the book that SL93 uncovered. The combined weight of these sources demonstrates significant coverage, and therefore notability. Please keep in mind that sources for museum articles may not be visible in an initial search, especially if the institution is in a foreign country. Half of the sources I found were in Spanish. There's an even greater need for extensive searching in foreign AfDs because of the language barrier, and because Google just doesn't index results from non-Anglophone countries that well. Altamel (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep following Altamel's edits. Google news isn't always be all/end all, especially when there are language issues to consider. StarM 02:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

King Oscar sardines[edit]

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

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

This article is an avertisement, containing promotional words. It contained those in its very first version. The only source listed is a primary source. This article is WP:TAINTED and should be dealt with. Burning Pillar (talk) 15:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The GNG has been met - for example, see [16], [17] and so on. As a side note, please can the nominator stop linking their own essay "WP:TAINTED" in AfD discussions, it's their own opinion, and AfD discussions are based on policies and guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen plenty of essays being linked in deletion discussions like that, and you surely don't have to follow it... if you read it and disagree that's fine. Just tell why it shouldn't be done that way. I just use it in deletion discussions if it's an appropiate summary of what I think of this. Also, that what is written in this essay is what I think about how to ensure that our WP:NPOV standard isn't continuously being undermined by more and more not neutral articles that pile up in Wikipedia. If you don't believe me, then look at these two tips of the iceberg:this here and that. I've seen the "we can improve, retain it" standard, and it just undermines WP:NPOV, if the issues pile on if it is used. My argumentation IS based on policy, even core content policy, on a pillar, even if I just linked an essay.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is an essay which you wrote, and has no input from anyone else. It seems like a way to make your opinion seem more important. Please do not cite your personal essay. Edison (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm with you fellers. There's some merit to the reasoning on both sides. In its present state the article reads like brand promotion, and lacks attributions to neutral sources. On the other hand, this is an iconic, long-lasting brand and reliable sources do exist. [18][19][20] Ideally, I would hope to see the article improved, cleaning up the promotional text and laying out the history with sufficient sourcing to explain why this is more than just another fish brand that's been swallowed up recently by Thai Union. On the assumption that we can do that, I !vote to keep.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but that's exactly the fallacy I told you about(also, it is an argument that is listedhere). Yes, it can probably be improved. It could also be rewritten from scratch, without having the burden of cleaning up an advertisement mess. As you can see, the number of problematic, but notable articles is hardly going to reduce itself. There is no deadline to articles with poor grammar or such. But if the articles are written not neutral, then they harm the encyclopedia by existing contrary to WP:NPOV, one of the 5 pillars the encyclopedia is built on. Of course, that can be fixed( and my essay does acknowledge that), but that doesn't happen in an acceptable pace for all articles in total. And if an article is really messed up with advertisements, then it IS probably easier to write a new article than to try to indentify and fix the mass of problems(bad weight of sources, OR, non-neutral terms, tone, cherrypicking) some articles have. With the sources provided, it should be possible to make a new article. The current article is little more than a roadblock, and an article written from a NPOV standpoint is much better than an advert someone tried to trim towards WP:NPOV, on average.Burning Pillar (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be, if it passes as keep for notability, but has unacceptable tone, to as necessary clean up the article of problematic or unsourced statements. A stub could result if necessary, with the list of reliable sources demonstrating the notability. An interested enough editor might possibly eventually improve the article... —░]PaleoNeonate█ ⏎ ?ERROR░ 03:03, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, no actual deletion reason given. Geschichte (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since sources exist to demonstrate notability as noted in this deletion discussion. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Plenty of significant coverage exists. SL93 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No deletion reason given" "WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP" Did you read? Apparently not. The deletion reason is that this article is, and has constantly been, in violation of WP:NPOV. And if you would read WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, you'd notice it allows deletion of such articles.Burning Pillar (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • An essay can't allow deletion of anything. SL93 (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously notable. Manxruler (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have cleaned up the article a bit, to make it look less like a promotional page for the company, and added independent sources. There's room for further improvement, but notability is clearly shown in the article now. --bonadea contributions talk 18:55, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retkes identities[edit]

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

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

This seems to be original research and self-promotion Deacon Vorbis (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for similar reasons:

Retkes convergence criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete both. I can only find one use of the term "Retkes identity"; if there is anything worth keeping (the exposition is so bare, it's hard to tell), it could better be said at Hermite–Hadamard inequality. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both, I agree with the nomination; information about the subject seems to only be based on the work of the originator, so fails NOR/NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subrata Mandal[edit]

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

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

Apparently non-notable Indian writer. The only source is a Facebook link, and I found nothing in a search[21] of Google News. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A WP:SPA autobiography by User:Rjsubrata9, also with edits by another SPA User:Rjsubrata. No claim of notability in the article (and are the offered Facebook and Twitter accounts sufficient for WP:BLPPROD?) and while the tailored Wikiproject India search returns various news articles mentioning individuals named Subrata Mandal, I am seeing nothing for this particular case. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails WP:BIO WP:GNG KylieTastic (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per AllyD. Fails WP:GNG. Jupitus Smart 11:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - can't find reliable sources.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Birger[edit]

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

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

All the sources are written by the subject himself with none toward him by others, meaning this article fails on notability. Donnie Park (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - after a Google search for newspaper articles or reviews on his work, I'm leaning towards delete. I didn't find much, mostly mentions of his comments on articles about tangential topics. I looked for reviews of his book, and while the book is mentioned quite a bit in the mainstream media, the book itself is not the central topic of conversation in those articles. Yvarta (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of indepth coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Starting off with his speaking engagement at the Cato Institute (which is already included in the article), we also have this in the Boston Globe, this on WCVB, this on GreenwhichTime], this from WaPo, and this from Deseret News, and that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. A search which is made more difficult by how many articles he's published. He's had major articles in The New York Times, New York Magazine, The Observer, Money, Washington Post, and Time. And again, that's just what I found on the first 3 pages of the search. Passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a clear pass of WP:AUTHOR 3, since he has "created ... a significant or well-known work..." and that work has "been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews":
  • Christianity Today[22]
  • The Guardian[23]
  • Kirkus[24]
  • Glamour magazine[25]
  • The Daily Beast[26]
  • New York Times[27]
  • VICE Media[28]
  • ABC[29]
  • Washington Post[30]
  • The Federalist[31]
  • Marie Claire[32]
  • Washingtonian[33]
  • NY Post[34]
  • Miami New Times[35]

The article obviously needs help, but he meets the notability criteria.--Jahaza (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Per a review of available sources, passes WP:BASIC and point #3 of WP:AUTHOR. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:SNOW. Bishonen | talk 16:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater (course)[edit]

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

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

This article should be deleted as it is not notable (fails the WP:GNG). This is because the article is currently unreferenced and a WP:BEFORE search found no useful results. The article is also WP:MILL as it is an article about a course when many others exist (with similar sourcing). -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 14:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what's even meant by "course": "This is a second Super Mario Maker course. This is a underwater course, but can't changed to overworld." This is about Super Mario gameplay? Delete per nom, whatever it is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. Wikipedia is not a video game walkthrough. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In no way is this an acceptable article. Maproom (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unclear, unsourced and WP:NOTGUIDE - Remarkably similar to World 8-4 supposedly by a different editor - Arjayay (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – WP:NOTGUIDE. Maybe there's a Wikia wiki the author could move it to? ~barakokula31 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subject does not rise to the level of meriting an article. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A WP:MILL article with no claim of importance. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above. bojo | talk 16:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as G12 copyright violation. (non-admin closure) KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 14:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pandit Motilal Shastri[edit]

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

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

(({text))} Sanirudha (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Pandit Motilal Shastri

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandit Motilal Shastri

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Habbegger[edit]

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

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

Minor football coach. Sourcing for the article appears to be almost nonexistent. And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has managed senior international football. RSSSF shows he was the manager of Bolivia in 1989. Article needs expanding, not deleting. Fenix down (talk) 09:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. Remember, AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 18:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hanson (band). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Hanson[edit]

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

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

Not notable outside of his band Hanson (band). All the content in his article is already in the band's article, except for the trivia stuff about his wife and kids. I've also nominated his brother Zac's article here. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hanson (band). Exemplo347 (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hanson (band), not independently notable but he may be searched for individually. Jellyman (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hanson (band). I have to agree. This is not independently notable. He hasn't done anything outside of the group, so there is nothing to report or search for. Horizonlove (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Everyone above has the reasons pretty well covered. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Rath[edit]

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

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

Delete: non-notable karateka. Tragic (unexplained) death at a young age does not confer notability. Quis separabit? 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the coverage seems to stem from his death (WP:ONEEVENT). In addition, he doesn't appear to he meet the notability criteria for martial artists at WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 23:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. See nominator's comment below (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hochschule für jüdische studies[edit]

Hochschule für jüdische studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Bishal revenger (talk) 12:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishal revenger: Please can you add a reason for the deletion quickly, or I'll be closing this AfD discussion per WP:SKCRIT. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: The article has multiple issues

• Poorly created
• Has no reference at all

Bishal revenger (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The reasons given for deletion are actually reasons for improvement. No valid deletion rationale has been provided. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will be releasing the tag and keep for maintenance then. Gracias Bishal revenger (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Osborne Training[edit]

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

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

Non-notable training company that does not meet the General Notability Guideline. Sources located through a WP:BEFORE search were all PR, "Advertorial" or passing mentions. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No significant coverage can be found. SL93 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article is sourced to advertising listings and press releases and I am finding nothing better. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hanson (band). (non-admin closure) Winged Blades ^Godric 07:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zac Hanson[edit]

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

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

Not notable outside of his band Hanson (band). All the content in his article is already in the band's article, except for a mention about an Australian musical he's supposedly working on. However, no source is given to support this and I couldn't find anything on google about this musical or his involvement in it, so I'm not sure where this information came from. I've also nominated his brother Isaac's article here. Bennv3771 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Hanson (band), not independently notable but he may be searched for individually. Jellyman (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think this should be redirected but I agree with the opening statement. I think the user who added the part about his 'Current Projects' should be questioned about that info and be asked to provide a source. If the user can't provide one, then the only thing this page is notable for is stating Zac's personal life, in which it could incorporated into the Hanson article. Horizonlove (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've asked the user on their talk page to provide a source and informed them about this nomination/discussion. Bennv3771 (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: I looked the user who added that "Update" and s/he hasn't made an edit since January 2017. Truthfully I don't think this page is going to get a source that supports their claim. With that being said, I vote for a Redirect to the Hanson article. Horizonlove (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Bennv3771 (talk) 02:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mendez Family[edit]

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

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. No indication of notability. Only one notable member. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject isn't notable. A single Chabad.org citation does not notability make (and I might add there are instances of close-paraphrasing from that source in this article). We already have an article on Joseph Nasi which is where this sort of content could be developed. This article is near incoherent and worthy of WP:TNT. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but a redirect to either Joseph Nasi, or Gracia Mendes Nasi might be OK as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentDelete - Isn't this the same as the Benveniste family? I suppose merge or redirect is possible, although delete seems fine. Perhaps Beneveniste should be added to Mendes (disambiguation) (usual spelling seems to be Mendes) and to Mendez (disambiguation). Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without redirect. Indeed, were this article to remain, it needs to be moved to a namespace specific to this family grouping to avoid massive confusion. Most people named Mendez have nothing whatsoever to do with this Sephardic Jewish group and there is no reason to think people who search for 'Mendez family' would be interest in this particular Mendes clan. Even were there some material of value to merge with Benveniste, the only acceptable redirect for the existing namespace would be to Mendez (the surname disambig page). Agricolae (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• REdirect, probably to Joseph Nasi, adding notes to the two dab pages mentioned by Smurphy. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mick Foley#personal life. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noelle Foley[edit]

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

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

Relative of wrestler with no independent notability. This seems like a prime example of TOOSOON.★Trekker (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mick Foley#personal life like it was before April 4 when user:James Aron Bond put a horrendous article in it's place.  MPJ-DK  11:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:51, 5 April 2017 (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/2017 April 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - to Mick Foley#personal life. No notability separate from her father. Nikki♥311 23:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Mick Foley#personal life, WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of celebrity South Korean military conscripts[edit]

List of celebrity South Korean military conscripts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All men have been subject to conscription in South Korea for the past 50+ years, but this list covers only the past decade. This is for "notable conscripts", but the list in entirely arbitrary and centered almost entirely around Korean pop idols. To put this in perspective, "15,423 actors reported their income in 2015" [36]. About half will be men. Between those alone, that would account for 7,500+ entries. Now take into account the 4,587 singers (half being men), 30,898 athletes (a majority, if not a vast majority, being men), and we're looking at least 25,000 entries, as most of them will serve in the military, sans those who successfully dodged it at their own expense or the few who are exempt from serving (like Inati of DMTN). Now add the notable conscripts of the past 50 years on top of all that, and what purpose does this list serve? This is neither a suitable nor manageable topic. ℯxplicit 11:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: indiscriminate (WP:NOT) for a country where all males are conscripted. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems indiscriminate to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanna Yannotti[edit]

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

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

Non notable actress (her roles in the three named films are all "uncredited"). All the sources are about her husband, not about her, so I redirected this page to that article. This was reverted. I don't really care whether this is a redirect or just gone completely from wikipedia, but the subject certainly lacks the notability to support a separate article, so at AfD we are! Fram (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability whatsoever.★Trekker (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Indication of notability are having. Definitely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.98.140 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No she's not. There is nothing here to indicate notability.★Trekker (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Maybe he just made it the article, but you guys just have to do classified and expand to do it more. Thanks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.101.48 (talk) 06:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC) [Double vote negated][reply]

That's not our job. Do it yourself if you want it to be kept.★Trekker (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no notability from what I can see. I have seen a slew of articles from James Aron Bond, without notability, no proper sources and poorly written.  MPJ-DK  22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Nikki♥311 23:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Some uncredited roles only. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Is this a joke? Passing mentions of someone do not indicate notability per GNG. 172.110.215.151 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The two votes from 112.134.X.X are blatantly the same person, and most likely the creator logged out. The chances of two people with incredibly similar IPs, on the same ISP, in the same country, commenting on the same Wikipedia deletion vote... why am I even explaining this? 172.110.215.151 (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Note that the article has moved to Giovanna Angle.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of notability per WP:NACTOR. CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED.LM2000 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Kurykh (talk) 05:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schostal[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Photos bought by museums, but were they exhibited? Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. The article looks like a stub, but this is a historical photo agency labeled by Europeana as "one of the most recognized photograph agencies of the inter-war period, with branches in Vienna, Paris, Milan and Berlin." ([37]). According to the German Historical Museum, "Schostal was one of the largest agencies of the 1920s and 1930s", as described in their book “People, places, times: Photography at the German Historical Museum” ([38]) as well as in their exhibition about the 20th century ([39]). Clearly notable. Citing and more in-depth info would benefit the article, but AfD is not the place to work that out. -- IsaacSt (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per above. Thanks, IsaacSt. Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Matthews[edit]

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

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

fails NGOLF DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]