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

The result was speedy keep. This is not a right place to nominate a redirect for deletion. Also, the proposer's rationale is unclear (what does not exist? What should be in all caps?). Vanjagenije (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third intifada[edit]

As it does not exist yet, it does not need to exist. Also, it's likely to be all caps. Wakari07 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This AfD has not been set up correctly. In addition this a redirect not an article so its not even using the correct item. This page should redirect to 2014 Jerusalem unrest, which as the first sentence clearly indicates, has been called by this name. - Galatz^Talk 17:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm in agreement with Galatz. This term is used in 2014 Jerusalem unrest and can be a target for the redirect. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:03, 8 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Thayer[edit]

Susan Thayer (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)

Only coverage in very niche magazines and simple listings. A WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 23:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes verifiability and notability. Specialist magazines are a valid source, as we don't expect all topics to be in national mainstream pubs. Otherwise entire topics like pro wrestling, darts and heavy metal might disappear from the site overnight.Egaoblai (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I sourced her art that's in the permanent collection of several museums. She has work in the Smithsonian, the De Young Museum, the Museum of Contemporary Craft, the Museum of Fine Arts Boston, the Racine Art Museum and the Newark Museum. She passes CREATIVE easily. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ARTIST #4(d): is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Mduvekot (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for passing WP:ARTIST, her work being kept at collection six notable museums. Also the referenced magazine is not niche and the writer of the referenced story is an award-wining author–Ammarpad (talk) 08:22, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes WP:ARTIST with her works being held in several museums as outlined above. Antonioatrylia (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as clearly passing WP:ARTIST. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:07, 14 December 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. Sock votes discarded, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Lemaire[edit]

Benjamin Lemaire (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 person appears not to be notable by our standards. The references in the article appear trivial in the extreme – I don't immediately see even one independent reliable source with in-depth cover of the subject. A G-news search does yield some hits – according to Le Figaro, he was imprisoned for aggravated corruption and aggravated assault of minors in October 2016; however, I don't find any confirmation of this report in any other mainstream news source. Even if the sexual abuse allegation proves to be true and documented, it does not make him notable. I can't see why we need an article on him.

Note: this is not the Benjamin Lemaire who started 'Le vin tout simplement', nor the sixteen-year-old cyclist of the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: I removed a number of "publications" from the article as the publisher was Neverland Editions. Until a couple of hours ago, this page read "Neverland est une jeune maison d'édition indépendante créé par Ben Lemaire, Arthur Manderley et Etienne Charles pour défendre des projets engagés de expérimentaux. Bien que nos publications soient principalement orientées sur la poésie, nous sommes ouverts à tout type d'ouvrage à condition qu'ils aient une plume ..." (if you hurry and search for it on Google you may still see that text). It has since been changed, and the publications re-added to the article by MangoZona. It's really, really hard to imagine that could be a co-incidence ... Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another note: I've now also nominated for deletion Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon, about a video apparently made by Lemaire (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Wood and The Prick au Trianon). I assume that non-notable video is what MangoZona has referred to below as "1 notable feature accepted in WP"? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:38, 12 December 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)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lack of indepth sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1 notable feature accepted in WP, and 4 majors sources (TeleStar, Slate, Gala, 20 Minutes, all big french medias) MangoZona (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2017 (UTC)— MangoZona (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep secondary sources are present Ninobalto222 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)— Ninobalto222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. What the nomination says. (And if he is an "emerging" whatever, then let's wait till he has emerged.) -- Hoary (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upper reasons, plus this should be rewritten from top to bottom and sources researched again. Too many unverifiable facts and wrong / biased references. Giorgio69 (talk) 11:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sources are there, secondary sources, I see no problem IamAGecko (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)— IamAGecko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep Lot of COI here (for and against as fare as I see) but person notable anyway. Liloula2200 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)— Liloula2200 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
•  Checkuser note: The following accounts are sock puppets: Liloula2200, IamAGecko, Ninobalto222, and MangoZona. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IamAGecko.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given this new information, I would like to highlight (apart from the fact that only the puppets seem to be ok with keeping the article) that 95% of the contribution to this article were made by these sock puppets, given a good information on its unreliability as well as its not notableness. Giorgio69 (talk) 18:23, 14 December 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 as the subject passes WP:GEOLAND (non-admin closure) FITINDIA 00:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shekhey pind[edit]

Shekhey pind (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 should be deleted due to a lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duck1738 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move to Shekhe Pind per the consensus of the previous AfD debate. Legally recognized settlements are notable per WP:GEOLAND regardless of size. According to Census of India, the 2011 population was 487.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:GEOLAND. I agree with Gene93k that if it is kept the article should be moved to the correct spelling (which should have been done after the last AfD). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GEOLAND.There is mention of the place in the some mention PUDA cancels flat scheme The Tribune ,Here its postal code is 144025.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:27, 15 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Murciano[edit]

Adam Murciano (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 because it fails notability guidlines per WP:GNG and also fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. There have been other pages, such as for actress Kelly McCormack, which have been deleted for this same reason. Wikipedia does not have pages for actors merely because they exist. Almost all of the sources used are IMDb, YouTube, or WP:BLOGS and zero reliable source coverage that meets the Wikipedia standards… After a Google search of my own, I was not able to find any more significant coverage to assert notability. Reliable source coverage supporting a credible notability claim per WP:NACTOR is necessary for such a page to exist on Wikipedia. Kim Leung (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The roles seem to be minor, coverage largely lacking (the one interview that's in there is a website interview based on his having done one day of work of Odd Squad.) The Young Entertainer Awards do not seem to have gained significant notability (as witness the lack of a Wikipedia page for them.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the only production he was in was a TV show where he "guest starred" which is almost never a significant role.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I suspect that this article was created by a PR person since this is the only article that the author has created or edited under their user account. The subject may be notable in the future, but not now Rogermx (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey[edit]

Mayors of Teaneck, New Jersey (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:NPOL, mayors of a town of about 40,000 people are not notable. Rusf10 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep That guide is for creating individual articles on mayors, not lists. The guide makes no mention of a cutoff in population. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No there is not a cutoff. However, the guidelines state that they must eithier have 1. Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. In this case, No OR 2. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.- Outside of local news, this is not the case 3. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".- In this case, that is true, it does not--Rusf10 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. --RAN (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The list should not exist because the contents of it are not notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason:

William W. Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Frank W. Burr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eleanor Kieliszek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lizette Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Abraham (mayor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Keep all the GNG says if they have sufficient references they are notable. I have a feeling this is a personal issue. There is also no requirement to be notable for multiple things. --RAN (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sources is not the issue, its notability. Yes, there is plenty of local press coverage here. And I do not have any personal issues with you, so I don't know where that's coming from.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant press coverage" does not exclude statewide or local coverage. Notability is determined by sources. The "personal" was about the city, not about you and me. -- --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I misunderstood. But no I don't have anything against Teaneck, its a nice town.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

also sourcing is an issue in the John Abraham article, there are none. And most of the others the only reliable source is basically an obituary. --Rusf10 (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The Abrams article was just a two sentence stub so I redirected it to the list and incorporated the text there. I have no objection to expanding it in the future. --RAN (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reverted the redirecting; please don't blank/redirect pages that are the subject of an active AfD. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep all and relist separately. This is a train wreck. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Faulty nomination. Original nom of the list is based on notability for individuals. Addition of individuals is based on "because they are mayors of Teaneck who are not notable for any other reason," which is obviously incorrect even just looking at the leads of the articles. No objection to speedy renomination of individuals. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- there seems to be objection to the bundling of these nominations. I figure that they were related pages, so I nominated together to avoid clutter. I therefore will withdraw this nomination and renominate each page separately.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 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. Blatant hoax. Deleted. Jujutacular (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lanternsaurus[edit]

Lanternsaurus (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 can't find any reliable sources on Google or Google Scholar that support the existence of this dinosaur. So, as it is currently unreferenced, I propose that it be deleted until it can be better referenced. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 21:32, 8 December 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 merge to Cookie dough. This should be a selective merge. The target article already has a section on this, and WP:UNDUE is a concern. Surprisingly, theres also a consensus to not leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough[edit]

The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough (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)

Subject is unencylopedic. Meatsgains (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect - To Cookie dough. I don't know that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic, but I also don't see a compelling reason that this should be a stand alone article when it could very well help fill out the main article which leaves much to be desired. No prejudice toward spinning off again if the main article eventually become too cumbersome. GMG^talk 20:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike redirect per points raised by User:BD2412 that I should have but didn't consider. GMG^talk 22:05, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article could be better obviously, but the topic itself seems completely fine if that's the issue. the topic is notable and in my opinion is different enough from 'Cookie dough' to constitute its own article. I just went to the Cookie dough article and added a see also section with a link to The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough. That hopefully should be fine enough. And for anyone who without reading the article will come to this discussion and claim that the article is bias just because this topic could easily be made into a bias article, I can tell you from reading it that it's not. Grapefruit17 (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against the subject at all. My only concern is that it seems to be a definite subordinate topic to that of cookie dough, and it doesn't seem that the main article is developed enough to warrant a WP:SPINOFF. GMG^talk 21:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Doesn't deserve its own article, all can be stated in Cookie dough article. We don't have separate article for safety of eating raw eggs, chicken, beef, etc., nor should we.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nom, this is not a reasonable topic (or title) for an article. A selective merge would be OK if there is high-quality content to merge. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - To Cookie dough. No redirect, as the capitalization of this title is unlikely as a search term, at least. bd2412 T 21:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - No reason for this unnecessary content fork. Merging the content entirely would be WP:UNDUE so it is best for it to be selective. All we need is concise paragraph, maybe two if the sources permit.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, just possibly, Merge. This isn't a stand-alone subject, and is unlikely to ever become one. Anmccaff (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 00:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with cookie dough. Vorbee (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Cookie dough. No redirect necessary (as per bd2412). = paul2520 (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with cookie dough. WP:SNOW TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The cookie dough article has a succinct section on health concerns. There is not much that the content from this article can improve on in my opinion. As a standalone content fork, the The Safety of Eating Raw Cookie Dough article is not necessary to reduce the length of the cookie dough article. Finally, as BD2412 notes there is no need for a redirect. Malinaccier (talk) 00:12, 16 December 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. ansh666 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

L.I.G.H.T. Christian Academy[edit]

L.I.G.H.T. Christian Academy (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 notability with no reliable sources. Please note that search engines may include, because of ignoring punctuation marks, several other schools with a similar name for example in the USA: Texas, Missouri etc. Mramoeba (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising. Absolutely no signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 10 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Galerie ONOFF[edit]

Galerie ONOFF (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:NORG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources about this gallery. Rogermx (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Rogermx (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- WP:GNG / WP:CORPDEPTH fail and corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the refs cited don’t appear to mention the gallery and I couldn’t find any other RS. NB my German is reasonable but not fluent. Mramoeba (talk) 18:40, 15 December 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn, all votes to keep J04n(talk page) 01:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Rafidison[edit]

Martin Rafidison (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)

What we have here is a former member of the National Assembly of Madagascar which would meet NPOLITICIAN if we could verify it but is now an unreferenced BLP. I did, what I consider to be, an exhaustive web search and found nothing but Wiki-mirrors. The original external link no longer works and even checked the Way Back Machine with no luck. If we are going to require that all BLPs have sources this needs to be deleted. I will happily withdraw this nomination if a source is located. J04n(talk page) 20:15, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. J04n(talk page) 20:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• He's noted here as part of a delegation. Describes him as an MP representing Morombe which is consistent with what our entry says. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Florida Army's link, but work definitely needs to be done. South Nashua (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is a huge pass of the notability guidelines for politicians. Madagascar is a major country, and we would keep him even if he was in the legislature of the much less importannt by any measure Mauritius. I am confident more sources exist in either Malagasy or French, actually probably both. One might have to peruse libraries in Madagascar to find such sources. I would like to see the article state which dates he served in the National Assembly, and even who preceded and succeeded him. However Wikipedia is a work in progress, and we do not throw out articles because we cannot currently get them to have a minimal amount of useful information. As long as there is enough sourcing to verify that someone was in fact part of a national assembly, we keep the article. We Even keep the article if an indepth search reveals we will probably only even have their name appearing on one listing of the members of the national assembly of that place. For the same reasons we keep articles on kings for whom we know little more than their name, at least as long as their being real historical figures can be verrified, and in some cases even when the authenticity of the information on them is in dispute.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Member of the National Assembly. Needs to be expanded, but this one's easy. Scanlan (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination: agree with everything said above, now that there is a source to verify the page it should be kept. Thank you J04n(talk page) 14:50, 11 December 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 John Conyers. General consensus for a "redirect" closure. (non-admin closure) feminist 02:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Conyers III[edit]

John Conyers III (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 created this to be a redirect because people interested in the subject should find something. Instead, an article was attempted from it that so clearly does not meet WP:GNG that a discussion should not be necessary, but yet here we are. He fails WP:POLITICIAN as an unelected candidate. The only sources that cover him in any depth only address an arrest, so that's a BLP issue. To be clear, I want this to be redirected back to his fathers' article, as I had established it. I'm disappointed this process is necessary for such a clearly non-notable case. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- at least for now. Not only has he not won an election, he hasn't even officially announced he is running. Otherwise, he is not notable and notability certainly isn't inherited from his father.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect - I agree with the OP, but I don't feel a week-long discussion should be necessary. The redirect is to a related topic and to discourage re-creation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't want to initiate a week-long discussion on this either, but an editor reverted my redirecting this to his father's article, and there's no better mechanism to have this discussion than AfD, even though deletion isn't what I'm looking for. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete absolutely no reason to redirect at this point. A redirect might be worthwhile if Conyers wins the primary, but at this point he is a person who is not even for sure going to be on the ballot. I do think this primary will be another that will illustrate why Michigan should have run-off primaries, but we will see. Short of winning the election, Conyers will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect I agree with the sentiment of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap, and this is not (yet) notable for a standalone article. —cnzx (talk) 03:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect or delete. This is a plausible search term, but a person does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just for being a prospective candidate in a future congressional primary. Even being a confirmed candidate in the primary still isn't a notability criterion per se, and even winning the primary and thereby getting on the general election ballot still isn't grounds for a standalone Wikipedia article — to pass WP:NPOL, a person has to actually win the general election and thereby hold the office, not just run as a candidate. And until that happens, the only other way a candidate qualifies for an article is to properly demonstrate that he was already notable enough for one for some reason entirely independent of the candidacy, but this makes no other claim of preexisting notability for any other reason. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day 2018 if he wins the seat, but absolutely nothing here already gets him a standalone BLP today. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 14 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Paronto[edit]

Kris Paronto (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 of the sources in the page are promotional, and it fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He is the co-author of a bestselling book and a main subject of of a wide release movie. Sources include Herald-Mail Media and USA Today affiliate Greatt Falls Tribune which are two reliable sources covering him that are not promotional and Paronto is the subject which demonstrates WP:GNG. A simple google search shows many sources and hits. Certainly he Played an important role in a significant military event covered in multiple, reliable sources and easily satisfies that criteria listed in WP:NSOLDIER. --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Looks like he's got a lot of indepth coverage over multiple years that hasn't been added to the article. Omahan on Benghazi team is happy with '13 Hours' film, which is based on book he co-wrote 2016; Omahan in Benghazi in 2012 faults CIA station chief’s stand-down order 2014; Omaha native reflects on Benghazi attack 2015; Talk by Benghazi veteran stirs social media protest 2017; Paronto shares stories of Benghazi, life battles 2015. A lot is from Omaha, Nebraska but Victoria Advocate is in Texas, and Pilot Tribune and Enterprise is in Pennsylvania, and The Herald-Mail (DHeywards mentions above) is Pennsylvania/Maryland/West Virginia, none of which is anywhere near Omaha, so that meets WP:GNG with no problem. Murphy's Law: Just today, I add an image to the article as proof that can be done without liking or disliking or even knowing anything about the guy; and the very next edit the article gets nominated for deletion, so now I have to research something about him. Sigh. :-P --GRuban (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. DHeyward (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep per DHeyward and Captain Raju. Absolutely meets WP:GNG. After it closes, nominator might need to be trouted for this AfD. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteweak keep revised 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC) -- "Notable" for only one thing. Can be mentioned in other places where and if he is significant factor. SPECIFICO talk 19:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done keeping this a while and doing another AfD after awhile if it doesn't get any better. I don't consider the personal history of his family, etc. or other currently cited material sufficient for long term notability. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:SPECIFICO Many of our subjects derive their notability from one thing or event. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played a prominent role in the Benghazi event and subsequent books and film. Passes GNG with ease. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but WP:ONEEVENT too. SPECIFICO talk 21:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That coverage is awfully thin though. A note in the family section of a local paper, another promotional little bit basically announcing him as a speaker in a slightly bigger local paper, a few paragraphs in the IJR piece, and a book review. No, I don't think this is a lot. Drmies (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Er - sorry? The sources I posted are, respectively, 20 paragraphs, 70 paragraphs, 17 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs, 40 paragraphs. The 2 in DHeyward's post are 40 paragraphs and 10 paragraphs. Now they're newspaper paragraphs, not Russian novel paragraphs, but still, most of these are non-trivial indepth sources. And yes, they are local papers, but they are local papers unrelated to each other, and local to half a dozen states spread over half the country, and over 4 years. --GRuban (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Being covered in depth over numerous WP:RS, this subject easily passes WP:GNG. The article should be retained on wikipedia and expanded not deleted. Lacypaperclip (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nominator didn't show how the subject failed GNG. As a co-author of best selling book and author another of another book recognized by independent sourcees does surely meet GNG. The reference in the article alone do show this. In addition, the article is now greatly improved from this version with 4 refs when nominating to now current version with additional content and improved sources. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But the references are either promotional appearances related to his speaking tour or right-wing websites. Can you cite any mainstream news or analysis sources? SPECIFICO talk 17:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times has 3 articles.[2], and here's one of a few CNN refs and here's one of a dozen or USAToday pieces. They show notability over many years and different topics. Here, for example, is his second book unrelated to the Benghazi attack being reviewed in USAToday as a best-seller. National coverage in addition to local coverage over multiple topics. --DHeyward (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:, I come to respond with the sources, but there's already similar and better response. Pinging, in case not watching. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - seems to meet GNG and possibly AUTHOR - probably due to his involvement in an incident that was a political scandal.Icewhiz (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Post-Benghazi activities appear to have enough coverage to overcome BLP1E. ValarianB (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:29, 12 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Lamia[edit]

Nicholas Lamia (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 really about Lamia's combat outfit - Lamia is incidental to it. Suggest deletion under WP:BIO or renaming article with the name of his unit. Rogermx (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't even tell us Lamia's rank and I get no hits on Lamia in Google or Newspapers.com. The unit is too small to be recognized; I don't see renaming as an option. This reeks of being a WP:MEMORIAL page.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom--IamIRAQI (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not everybody who happened to participate in D-Day needs a memorial page. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neither the individual nor the unit rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not as clear cut as presented above, the notability claim (per WP:SOLDIER comes from the Legion of Honour award - which can be sourced from - [3] [4] - however it seems this was bestowed on a rather random group of veterans in 2003 that were still alive at the time. Sourcing in a BEFORE does not show he meets GNG - so presumption of notability, per SOLDIER (all be it the legion of honour award having issues in general due to amount of bestowals), is not enough.Icewhiz (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't find coverage in newspapers.com or elsewhere for Nick or Nicholas Lamia. It seems to me that which unit he participated with fails WP:V and some of this fails WP:OR, and there isn't sufficient RS about him to clearly pass WP:NPOV. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:33, 12 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Delgadillo[edit]

Patricia Delgadillo (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)

Vice President at a major company. Listed on a list of "Executive and Emerging Leaders" which is of course not enough for notability. The article previously contained a copyvio from the company website,whichwe gave no other indication of 1notability No significant sources available.--there is material in Google News about whatI think to be others of the name, but if by any chance it is the same person it's entirely notices of running in half-matrathons and the like. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:04, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vice presidents in companies are a dime a dozen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability from reliable sources. Looks more like a résumé or the type of bio one would expect on the company's website. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 11 December 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. ansh666 02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shrilk[edit]

Shrilk (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 and the related article Micromasonry, also nominated here, are both promotional hype about inventions by Javier Fernandez, and are about things that happened 6 years ago that never came to be. Both were created by the IP Special:Contributions/161.116.100.92 and then elaborated on by the SPA User:Alt1979, and both are based on the media going gaga over science press releases. I have merged/redirected the useful content in Shrilk to Chitosan#Bioprinting already. An IP from the university where the person who invented this works now reverted the redirect, and reverted the speedy deletion nomination I did after that, and also left me this message. So here we are. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micromasonry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Shrilk is referred, for example, to as “one of the materials that will change the future of manufacturing” (Scientific American), a “Supermaterial” (National Geographic), and has been chosen (with graphene) one of the “five material that could change the word” (The Guardian). It caused all that "hype" because was the first artificial demonstration of the reproduction of the natural synergies in structural biomaterials. A key factor for their generalized use in technology. The "promotional hype" is actually a personal and strongly biased opinion unsupported by any data or reference. Actually there is no such "hype" or interest decrease on the topic. In addition to its scientific and technological relevance, it is recommended to keep this page due to the large number of citations on printed and digital media to Shrilk, included most main media outlets (see "Find sources" links at the heading of this page).
  

This year this "promotional hype about something that happened 6 years ago that never came to be" as the user Jytdog describes it, was chosen by the Launch foundation (NASA, USAID, the U.S. Department of State, NIKE...) as one of the leading technologies for a sustainable world.

The user Jytdog has been informed through the editions as well as in his user page on the importance of this material in the field of bioinspired engineering, but he seems unreasonable and motivated by a personal opinion on the time required for a technology to transcend the laboratory environment. His argumentation is based on who has collaborated on the article, ignoring the discussion on the actual content of the article. He is repeatedly ignoring that the success of a technology or the lack of practical use of a scientific achievement, are not included as reasons for deletion on Wikipedia's policies. Ignoring also that Shrilk has triggered a transformation of plastic industry and packaging (references are deliberatively chosen among those with less than a year), even if the speed of that transformation seems to be unsatisfactory for the user proposing the deletion of this article.

The user has been informed multiple times, and he has repeatedly vandalized the page redirecting it to a different article. Additionally, he seems confused on the nature of the material, which describes as "bioprinted" on the Chitosan article where he wants to merge this. Shrilk is not bioprinted, is produced by sequential layer deposition by film casting as is described in this article. As a result of the lack of understanding of this user on the topic of this article and those on the same area, there is an unintended damage to Wikipedia's content. Due to the obvious lack of expertise and the biased negative opinion of the user, it is suggest a ban for further vandalism of this page and related topics.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC) — 202.94.70.60 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

formatting fixed, sign unsigned Jytdog (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the bioprinting thing. I moved the content into the Chitosan#Research section and improved it a bit in these diffs. Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the IP from where this is written, I suggest the user Jitdog to carefully read and understand this Wikipedia article to enhance the quality of the discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for the IP address you are using, which is here: User talk:202.94.70.60. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the claims from the 2010-2011 press releases fail verifiability. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

→All claims from press releases are based on peer-reviewed scientific articles published on top scientific journals and based on scientific data. All references to the scientific articles are included on the press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability doesn't go away over time.Egaoblai (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sign of notability, then or now. --bonadea contributions talk 14:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How are the articles in Nat Geo, The Guardian and others not a sign of notability? Egaoblai (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be enduring coverage. The refs are clustered in time; the press sometimes picks up on science press releases and runs with them (we talk about this in WP:MEDREV for example) and so some refs were indeed generated. (Content about this stuff is not subject to MEDRS; health claims about uses would be if there were any.) But this should not really have been created per WP:NOTNEWS and indeed this all it has turned out to be so far - there is a WP:TOOSOON aspect here.

These articles appear to me to have been created in an effort at promotion and we are not here to promote anything or anyone, per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quick search of secondary sources playing with the made-up rule of "enduring" coverage (inexistent rule on WP:NOTE). Google search of Shrilk returns more than 72,000 results only in English:

- National Geographic, 2013: (Link)

- The Guardian and CNN. 2014: (Link1) (Link2)

- BBC and Popular Science, 2015: (Link1) (Link2)

- Huffington Post, 2016: (Link)

- The New York Times, 2017: (Link)

All of them across time and on high quality independent secondary sources with specialized editors on the topic of this article. No press releases or picking of press releases included. For more (there are literally thousands of mentions to Shrilk on the media): google.

Additionally those claiming WP:TOOSOON (a rule hardly aplicable for science and technology) seems to be mixing the concepts of notability WP:GNG (which this article pass with flying colors as per WP standards of WP:Secondary) with commercialization. There are many materials which are not commercialized or applied such as graphene or metamaterials, but still are notable because their impact on the field. Also note that age doesn’t change notability, that is why obsolete technologies like the Walkman or LaserDisc have a WP page. Therefore, while this Shrilk has a demonstrated 'endured, coverage, the ad-hoc request of it seems inappropriate for this discussion (Maybe it is for those claiming WP:NOTNEWS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.24.77.60 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial discussion is of the essence. Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time? the 2014 refs are one paragraph, and ditto the 2015 huff-po blog (ahem). listicles really. The 2017 NYT ref is even more passing. Substantial discussion over time, this is not. says yoda (btw, laserdisk and walkman were actual products, and the walkman was very impactful. Shrilk is still very early stage, un-commercialized technology. we do wish you all the best in translating this science to the marketplace, but WP is not a vehicle to help with that) Jytdog (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's is what you got wrong all the time. Shrilk is NOT a technology and it is not in early stage. As the article mentions, Shrilk is a material, first of its kind, reproducing the synergies on natural materials with its own molecules. That is why it was impactful. Nobody in the field thinks that Shrilk is a technology as nobody thinks graphene is a technology. Also I believe you still are mixing the concepts of notability and commercialization/application, and the "Do you see how the mentions get more dwindling with time?" has already being demonstrated false the first time you mentioned it with a link to the google searches of the material for the last five years (see above). You are just ignoring the data and supporting subjective arguments at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply here. Sure it is a material.... that is unfeasible commercially. As the NYT says "it is not yet cost-competitive." So it is a nifty trick so far with lots of potential, but is not actually good for anything. Yet. It may be one day. Hence the WP:TOOSOON. Jytdog (talk) 15:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still are mixing the concepts of commercialization with notability. The notability of a material is not limited to its commercial success. A material can be notable (and worth of a Nobel prize) because its unexpected and/or outstanding properties. The obvious example of graphene has been given to you multiple times in this discussion, and you still prefer to ignore it. Graphene has all the characteristics you are describing for WP:TOOSOON: It can't be produced in large amounts, doesn't have application, it is not cost competitive. It still is EXTREMELLY relevant in the field, and worth of a Nobel Prize, because its properties. As in the case of Shrilk, Graphene might never be applied, but its notability doesn't depend on that. And it is not the only one, many materials are relevant because what they represent in the field and their rare/unexpected properties, not because the feasibility of its application. Here you have a list of some of them, all fitting in what you consider a unsuitable material to be in WP, all of them with a well deserved WP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.94.70.60 (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two (really) last replies. Graphene is important scientifically - it was the basis for a Nobel. And the first graphene products are now on the market, admittedly 13 years after it was isolated and characterized (the work that won the Nobel). So there is no comparison, and especially not on the level of basic science. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:TOOSOON. The sources are pretty obviously based on press releases, and we have a lot of history showing that the promise in press releases very often fails to materialise. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not yet ripe for encyclopedia. Encyclopedic content must be well documented by secondary sources. And this Research is not yet to have that. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not (yet) notable; article is a promo-piece. Alexbrn (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG: the few mentions I find in large papers are from 2014 and earlier and appear to be press releases. Likely WP:TOOSOON (also reminding me that WP:NOTNEWS may also apply). —PaleoNeonate – 05:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above comments on GNG and sourcing. Probably a good topic for a TED Talk, but not here. --Calton | Talk 10:53, 13 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Rank (ice hockey, born 1982)[edit]

Kyle Rank (ice hockey, born 1982) (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:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nominated - hasn't met WP:NHOCKEY ...PKT(alk) 22:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails notability guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails criteria as outlined above. Not notable. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 21:46, 14 December 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 WP:NPASR. While being a sock doesn't immediately disqualify the nomination, it does seem to be fairly bad faith and incorrect to boot. If anyone has any real concerns about the list, please renominate, but for now there's nothing to do here. ansh666 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade[edit]

List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)– (View AfD · of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements by decade)

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

The page cites absolutely no sources and is based off of original research. This is an unnecessary extension of the List of billboard hot 100 chart achievements and milestones page, which is more than sufficient. Sugarpuff888 (talk) 03:09, 8 December 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 December 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While my siding on this is at best a weak keep (individual articles focusing on the number ones of the individual decades of the Billboard Hot 100's history exist already, like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1980s, etc.), I will make two points here. The nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sugarpuff888, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CheetaWolf) and in another of the AfDs they filed (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Billboard Hot Country Songs chart achievements), another editor considered they did so on account of retaliatory measures after what occurred in yet another AfD, which was filed by the sockpuppet. My second point is the nominator is under the belief that the page has no sources at all, when that is not true. Some of the material in this article is backed directly by reliable sources, discounting any original research claims for those parts. Some other parts of the article, including the more recent content from the 2010s, could use some sourcing, however. Don't know if this AfD should remain open, as I don't know whether the sockpuppetry angle in itself is grounds for dismissing it. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As the original author, it's a WEAK KEEP. It's straight forward, sourced, and doesn't go too deep into meaningless chart statistics like some other "chart achievements" sections, but still possibly an unneeded expansion of List of Billboard Hot 100 chart achievements and milestones. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:25, 15 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB)[edit]

Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) (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 Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete overly promotional and lacking independent sources. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

“Was nominated recently but the original nom withdrew the nomination as was closed as Keep. But, I cannot find any intellectually independent sources. Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH”

-- HighKing⁺⁺ and LibStar see response to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rider_Levett_Bucknall_(RLB)_(2nd_nomination):

Keep The nomination for deletion does not provide justification or support from specific citation *within* the article that substantiates the claims of the nomination other than links to WP policy pages. However, these concerns are addressed in detail below:

1) Re: “I cannot find any intellectually independent sources.”

-Wall Street Journal, Seattle Times, Sydney Morning Herald, and Chicago Tribune all meet criteria for intellectually independent sources according to WP:ORGIND “Sources used to support a claim of notability include independent, reliable publications in all forms, such as *newspaper articles,* books, television documentaries, websites, and *published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.*”

cf: Wall Street Journal Ref 7: Chen, Stefanos (2017-03-22). "The U.S. Apartment Boom, Measured in Construction Cranes". Wall Street Journal. ISSN 0099-9660. Retrieved 2017-11-30.

cf: Seattle Times Ref 8: ”Seattle has most cranes in the country for 2nd year in a row — and lead is growing". The Seattle Times. 2017-07-11. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

cf: Sydney Morning Herald Ref 23: Cummins, Carolyn (2017-09-29). "There are a lot of cranes in the sky". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 2017-11-06.

Further, there are *26* other independent sources covering Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) cited in this article. The above also addresses “References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH” as well, but points below expound on this claim to some extent as well.

2) Re: “Article is also promotional, fails WP:SPIP.”

- This claim has not been substantiated with any specific references to promotional content. It is possible that the article may seem promotional to those unfamiliar with the role of quantity surveying in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) field; however, there are no skyscrapers, olympics, or major architectural achievements without quantity surveying and cost modeling processes. Rider Levett Bucknall’s major project involvement as quantity surveyor (Olympics, Megatall buildings ((Wuhan CTF Centre, soon to be China’s highest skyscraper)), Atlanta Falcons NFL Stadium, and others), and the research function of its analytics and reporting, have both been considered notable enough to be written about by the above cited sources, and numerous others. Notability in this instance, and detailed exposition of the subject matter, supercedes an implication of promotion.

A detailed article about a firm, which is essential to the existence of some of the highest buildings in the world and major sporting venues among other significant cultural objects, should not be deemed promotional simply because it explores a corporation.

WP:SPIP states, “The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.” If the article is "overly promotional" then other significant peer articles on Wikipedia in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction industries would fail this test as well. See: Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Bechtel, etc.

3) This is speculative, but I am wondering if this article is being nominated for deletion simply because the subject matter seems “boring” on a cursory reading. Or if the nomination is motivated by an idea that: “This is an article about a corporation not widely known, it is therefore promotional.” Further, it seems odd that this page is receiving objection if WP:AUD is considered. WP:AUD states: “The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.” Would argue that the source audiences here are both global and relevant. Certainly any students of AEC would need and seek this information. Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) is a development of trunks within the discourse of AEC and and helps answer the questions:

“What are some notable examples of firms doing quantity surveying work?

“What is the nature of their involvement in the construction and design of significant AEC achievements”?

Thank you to all who have contributed for your service to Wikipedia and for vetting this work. Though my argument above may sound snarky, I do believe this is the kind of discussion that certainly makes Wikipedia a more robust resource. Vincent Wedge (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge[reply]

• Comment Quick responses to your long post. The requirement for two "intellectually independent" references is not satisfied merely by WP:RS. The reference must also contain independent analysis or optinion and not merely namecheck the company or regurgitate quotations from company officers such as the articles you've mentioned. For example, the WSJ article mentions the company once in conjuction with a quotation from an RLB VP. This is not intellectually independent and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Your other examples fail for the same reasons. The article fails WP:SPIP because there is nothing within the article to indicate notability - its a simple run-of-the-mill company - and providing lists of "services" and "major projects" is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a free company brochure to advertise the company. You must have missed the part that states very clearly that Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article. Finally, WP:AUD only comes into play if criteria regarding intellectually independent references has been met - it hasn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like the company paid someone to write the article - it was created ready made with dozens of references. I checked 10 of the references and none of those indicated notability, they were very run of the mill, promotional, lacking depth or similar. I don't have time to check all of the references - I think that quantity of references is intended to pull the wool over my eyes. Szzuk (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Szzuk There is no need to go ad hominem, here. I am a PhD candidate at the University of Utah. This is not a paid article. Was created out leftover AEC research for my doctoral dissertation. Deletion of the Services and Sectors sections is probably a good idea. -- HighKing⁺⁺ makes a valid point on that count. However there is much left unaddressed in my response to the initial argument for deletion post. Will respond more in a few, but I think the supposition that this is paid is offensive and needlessly incendiary. Vincent Wedge (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Vincent Wedge[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject has not met the general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Malinaccier (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dagra cryptocurrency[edit]

Dagra cryptocurrency (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 cryptocurrency sourced entirely to press releases and primary sources with no coverage available and relatively unknown in the crypto world. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete WP:G11, as per nom. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense, category two: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confusing that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand it, even though the English isn't quite up to par. L3X1 (distænt write) 14:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, L3X1. It is good to hear that. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining the one sentence that irritates me the most? "All transactions are immediate and guaranteed because the gateways are blocked by a present transaction." —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Codename Lisa Ah, you had to ask about that one :) I assume it refers to network blocks/blockchains, though that pushes on the bounds of grammar. L3X1 (distænt write) 15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, there are other stuff too. For example, the very next sentence: "Coin mining is possible by ordinary computers and video cards." I desparately gazed at this sentence, trying to decide whether to remove it as vandalism or not. Fortunately, I read Bitcoin § Mining later and realized that "mining" is just a misnomer and doesn't have anything in common with, say, mining gold or silver. Later, FleetCommand told me that miners actually do earn something. Armed with all this knowledge, "video card" still trips me. I believe this article is an advertisement written for someone who is totally familiar with the subject of cryptocurrency and Bitcoin. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it doesn't seem to be widely used or notable for any other reason. If it was widely used there would be at least some discussions about it online. Compared to other crypto-currencies, this one seems to be largely unknown.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is outright non notable. No secondary coverage; no evidence of reliable sources report. Primary sources show existence but existence is not notability –Ammarpad (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete This is CSD A7 stuff. —cnzx (talk) 04:18, 11 December 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) -- HindWiki^Connect 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air Colombia[edit]

Air Colombia (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 notability and no reliable sources. Bingobro (Chat) 15:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:59, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added a few sources. The notability here is borderline but there, in my opinion. Note also that it's almost ludicrously hard to search for sources because "air Colombia" brings up so much content. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried searching under "air colombia villavicencio" to try and cut down the search, but I still only get social media and company directory listings – it seems those passing mentions in books and articles are all there is. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- sources can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs)

That's not a very good argument – if you think sources can be found, then find them yourself. Richard3120 (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Der Speigel is reliable. I looked on Google Maps, and yes, there were a bunch of DC-3s at the claimed airport. I looked up the registration numbers. Notability? The last outpost using these 70-year-old workhorses is fascinating (along with the Israeli Air Force). Rhadow (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There's enough here now that notability is established enough to satisfy. (Ed, next time, might want to consider the sandbox. ) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:03, 9 December 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. ansh666 03:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lalainia Lindbjerg[edit]

Lalainia Lindbjerg (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)

Completely unreferenced WP:BLP of a voice actress. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free WP:NACTOR pass just because roles have been listed -- to be considered notable just for having been in stuff, she needs to be the subject of media coverage about her performances in stuff. But the closest thing there is to sourcing here is the external links to her own Twitter and her profiles on IMDb and the IMDb equivalent for the anime genre, none of which are notability-supporting sources. Again, we require coverage about her, not just cursory verification in comprehensive "all actors" directories that she exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment she does have some news articles as a theatre actress in Vancouver, such as this article: [5] also appears in [6] [7]. Bulma in DBZ Ocean is a significant role, and her role in the Sabrina the Teenage Witch movie as a main antagonist. [8] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For her roles in DBZ Ocean or Sabrina the Teenage Witch to count as notability claims, she has to be the subject of reliable source coverage about those performances — merely asserting that a role was significant or major is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to be the subject of coverage about the role. But the source you've provided for Sabrina is the production company's own self-published website about itself, not a reliable or notability-supporting source. And for the local theatre sources, two of the three sources you provided merely namecheck her existence a single time without being about her — and the one article that is about her is from a local community weekly pennysaver in the context of having one role with the local community theatre, which is neither a notability claim in the first place nor a strong enough source to singlehandedly carry her over WP:GNG all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing is junk. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The community one is at least to demonstrate that she has been covered by an independent secondary source. That's not to say her Vancouver theatre work is Wikipedia-notable; it probably isn't. The DBZ shows a starring role in a significant show and the same with the Sabrina film, shows significance not a throwaway background part. But overall this would still be borderline WP:ENT. And please note, I'm not voting for Keep on this article as I personally don't think this is enough. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If you look at my history, you will see that I started it the day that I joined Wikipedia back in 2006 when I was a huge Gundam freak. I have moved on to other things in the subsequent 11 years hence I don't really have any serious attachment to it. If there aren't enough sources to establish notability, by all means delete it. Shaneymike (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no appearances logged at any major anime conventions: [9] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of the three sources identified above, only one is indepth about her, and that would not be enough to pass GNG on its own. Additionally it is a local, human interest type story, and clearly just being the subject of one such story in one of thousands of local papers with pages to fill is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 9 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe[edit]

Romance-speaking Europe (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)

None of the sources used in the article make any reference to a "Romance-speaking Europe" existing. Google search for "Romance-speaking Europe" returns almost entirely Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, plus a few offhand mentions that do not treat it as a separate topic. It seems to be basically a Wikipedia construct, and it just duplicates content already found at the main Romance languages article. We wouldn't have an article titled "Chinese-speaking Asia". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an awkward and uncommon term. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep especially when other articles regarding Germanic, Slavic, and Celtic speaking Europe are not deleted Luna935 (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How can they be deleted when they don't exist? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST seems to apply here. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OSE is not policy. L3X1 (distænt write) 20:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep, the phrase seems to appeared in quite a few book results--Prisencolin (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid rationale to keep. Just because "Romance-speaking Europe" appears in search results, it does not mean we should have an article with that title. I could search and find many examples of e.g. a "yellow jumper" but that does not mean we should have an article with that title. You can use a google search to find references, it’s often the best way to do so, but raw search results are meaningless.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JohnBlackburne:, the fact that this term appears in scholarly works suggests that its suitable for inclusion in WP. Also, the table is useful for comparisons between Romance-speaking countries. The Romance languages article is pretty large so it wouldn't fit there.--Prisencolin (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. Not a good topic for an article, as can be seen by the article which has almost no content, just a lead and list that enumerates the countries and a brief history of how the Romance languages ended up where they did. But this is all content found in Romance languages, in far more depth and properly in context. There is no need for this to exist as a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnBlackburne (talk • contribs) 08:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Prisencolin. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the content already exists more appropriatly in Romance languages, so this is needless duplication. Reviewing the previous AfDs none was closed because of asserting independent notability of this subject but only appealing to emotion and Keep, I like it. In addition this is largely baze on synthesis and original research of goverment's reports and statistics (90% of the sources used) and this is violation of Wikipedia core policy WP:NOR. No independent sources that show this term (and the concept it means) is discussed in reliable sources or scholarly works. –Ammarpad (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment more book results for "Latin Europe", this is the only page on the Latin Europe DAB page about a geographic region.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book is not even talking about the subject of deletion. And Just google searching name and seeing it everywhere is not an indication of notability, it has to do with how much content of the book actually talk about the subject directly. –Ammarpad (talk) 04:39, 14 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tonye Rex Idaminabo[edit]

Tonye Rex Idaminabo (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Promotional article. Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The awards won are for categories "young", "promising", etc. Probably too soon to have standalone article. Could be redirected to African Achievers Awards. Darreg (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree, a lack of WP:SIGCOV, fails GNG. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(c · m)} 04:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Very non notable. Fails basic WP:GNG for lack of coverage in reliable sources. And case of WP:TOOSOON is clear, the coverage seems to just starts now but not yet to be documented in an encyclopedia–Ammarpad (talk) 07:16, 15 December 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ROOM 1202[edit]

ROOM 1202 (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)

Notability? feminist 12:50, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. feminist 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. feminist 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: absolutely no evidence of notability, and the line "ROOM 1202 has proven that it is a band to watch, if for any reason because you never know where they will pop up next. Be sure to check www.room1202.com for more information." demonstrates that the whole article is a puff-piece. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable band and in any case pretty much the whole article is a WP:COPYVIO from this page on Soundclick.com Neiltonks (talk) 15:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: A promotional vanity page from an SPA editor that appears to be a cut and paste from the band's discontinued website. In trying to assess the notability of the subject I could find no significant third party evidence or any significant achievement. The Inland Empire Award is basically nothing; an "award" bestowed by an article in a defunct small community weekly. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:57, 8 December 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. G3. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

George Brütsin IV[edit]

George Brütsin IV (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)

For a composer that is apparently one of the most renowned of his century, there don't appear to be any sources out there about him. Obvious hoax. Melodydove (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: the only hits on Google are mirrors of this page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Looks like a hoax. Zero search results and Brütsin doesn't even appear to be a real surname. – Joe (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Looks like a hoax by Hackmaster. Srnec (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as obvious hoax. A notable composer with no book hits (all I got were hits on a German phrase)? Mangoe (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if this article is not a hoax, it still gets a name wrong - "Lancastershire" should be "Lancashire". The article currently has no cited references. Vorbee (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. Sometimes they are amusing, in this case just boring. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:V, seems to be a hoax. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:23, 8 December 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 Cerberus (Martian albedo feature). Merger from history is possible. Sandstein 14:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cerberus Hemisphere[edit]

Cerberus Hemisphere (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 stub has been sitting unsourced since its creation in 2006, and tagged as such since 2009. A WP:BEFORE search reveals that "Cerberus Hemisphere" was an informal name given to a mosaic of pictures taken by the Viking 1 orbiter in 1980. It is named after the prominent Cerberus dark area. This picture is referenced in a couple of astronomy books from the 1990s. The earliest mention seems to be a 1988/89 report from the NASA planetary geology program,^[1] which names four such picture mosaics as "hemispheres":

The "Valles Marineris Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~30° to 130° longitude, including Valles Marineris, Tharsis Montes, Lunae Planum, and Chryse and Acidalia Planitiae. The "Cerberus Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~140° to 230° longitude, including Elysium, Arcadia and Amazonia Planitiae and ancient cratered highlands. The "Schiaparelli Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~280° to 30° longitude, including Arabia Terra, Syrtis Major Planum, Hellas Planitia and the Oxia Palus area. The "Syrtis Major Hemisphere" mosaic covers the region from ~260° to 350° longitude, including Arabia Terra, Syrtis Major Planum, and Isidis and Hellas Planitiae.

The name "Cerberus Hemisphere" is not included in various modern sources detailing the topography of Mars; it appears to be only an anecdotal name that did not acquire enduring notability independently of this particular picture and mission. Hence my proposal to delete the article as insignificant and potentially misleading. We could possibly quote the book and display the Viking-era pictures in our article about Viking 1.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as it is left too long untouched and it doesn't contain any sources at all. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Mars geography; this entry is too small to warrant its own article. Vorbee (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No useful content. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Geography of Mars or some other article. Delete or redirect to Cerberus (Martian albedo feature). I could not find coverage in reliable sources other than the mosaic of pictures. Gulumeemee (talk) 10:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC); edited 04:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage --> Delete. Redirect only helpful if we want to talk about those pictures specifically. No consensus for this yet. — JFG ^talk 01:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good argument. We are probably not going to talk about this picture in the Geography of Mars article, but we might in the Cerberus article. I changed my comment. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would make sense in Cerberus (Martian albedo feature) indeed; I support the redirect there, and documenting the historical picture with a quote from the NASA report. — JFG ^talk 11:17, 11 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Anandharamakrishnan[edit]

C. Anandharamakrishnan (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 believe the previous AfD reached an erroneous conclusion. The journals with which the subject is associated turn out to be predatory open access, and confer no prestige at all. FRSC is not a prestigious award, it is a box-ticking exercise that can be obtained by any practitioner in the field after a few years. There are no independent biographical sources, and the author of the article has no other significant contributions. This article is likely COI, and is certainly based on inflation of credentials and status. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as in August AfD. Passes WP:Prof#C1 and WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

"As in August" does nto work, because it did not evaluate the journals. I just did: they are fraudulent. This represents a material change. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you would present an analysis to support your assertions. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment At least one chunk is a thinly edited copyvio from [10]: "His research endeavours are well documented in the form of highly commendable publications in reputed international journals, 2 International patents and 7 Indian patents. He is also the author of 4 books and 17 book chapters published by coveted publishers." XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that fellowship of the Royal Society of Chemistry is not a highly selective honour, so C3 is not met, however I don't understand how C1 is not met. You seem to be saying that the subject of the article publishes in unreputable journals, and while that is a concern, it is possible for a influential paper to be published in a crap journal, what you need to show is that the citations are crap. It would help if you gave an explanation as to why, for example, citations in Food Hydrocolloids, Trends in Food Science & Technology, or Food Engineering Reviews should not be counted towards C1.194.46.226.127 (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Here is my analysis based on the first page of the gscholar citations for his most cited paper:

I hope this dispels the notion that the citations are from predatory open-access journals. "Supports open access" does not mean that all articles are open-access, in fact in many of these journals a large majority of articles use the traditional model (for example Food Engineering Reviews has published 171 articles of which 3 were open-access). If the webpage of an article says 'purchase PDF', it is not an open-access article. Keep per WP:PROF#C1. 194.125.38.83 (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mentions of the subject are not so prevalent as much as they are expected to pass WP:GNG. There are also issues with conflict of interest and copyrights. Orientls (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see no need to pass WP:GNG. The pass is of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete -- basically self promotion; the journal citations are from open access journals and thus do not help with WP:PROF. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman What is wrong with open-access journals (as long as they are not predatory)? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:32, 28 November 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. Sandstein 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Kwame Kilpatrick's political career[edit]

Timeline of Kwame Kilpatrick's political career (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 is a timeline that is based on a small number of sources, two of which were multiple citations to offsite copyright violations and the rest are 404. There is pretty much nothing here that is not well covered in Kwame Kilpatrick. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for content is similar to that of the main page. I don't see the need for another article for Kwame Kilpatrick's career. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with article on Kwame Kilpatrick. Vorbee (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly think there is anything to merge, everything significant is covered in the main article already as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 20:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As a content fork that doesn't even contribute any significant new content. Merging would not be useful or practical for the main article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete those of us who live or work in the city of Detroit know that one article on King Kwame is enough. Absolutely no reason to have a second article on this crook.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete material here is already in the article, where it belongs, so no merge is necessary.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:51, 11 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Categorical perception[edit]

Categorical perception (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 a free web host for publishing journal articles. [11] duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article has good material in it, and the topic is sufficiently important to warrant representation in Wikipedia. I am satisfied that its appearance in Wikipedia does not violate any copyright based on Harnad's response and the changes to the entry relative to the earlier encyclopedia article on categorical perception. 15:39, 3:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely a legitemate, notable academic topic, based on the sources in the article and through a Google Books search. There's definitely room for cleanup, but I don't think it's necessarily fatal. I've instructed the original contributor to file with OTRS on the copyright issue. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a work of original research. That is not what Wikipedia is for. How many of the sources in the article mention categorical perception, are the there to verify other subjects which are then bought together by original synthesis to build this article? Which of the books hits are about this categorical perception? Regarding the copyright issue, given that this was published in Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science would we also need permission from them? duffbeerforme (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: Please don't be too defensive in order to score cheap point of deleting article you misthought is OR. Not talk of "mentioning," which is ubiquitous (if one really searches), below are academic books all published by internationally respected publishers, they all have "Categorical perception" in title and "discuss it" in entire content. The fact that you didn't see or know doesn't meant it doesn't exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is far, far from OR or journal webshosting. In good faith, it seems you forgot to do WP:BEFORE. "Categorical perception" (aka, CP) is well known topic and covered "specifically" in Academic books: Published by Cambridge Press, [12], Published by Standford University [13], Significant discusion [14], Published by Indiana University [15]. Dedicated chapter in academic book [16]. Extensively discussed by authoritative Journal Nature [17] and equally reputable Sage Pub [18]. "Catogorical perception" in the news [19], plus [20], [21], [22], [23]. Another extensive academic discussion of Categorical perception specifically [24] –Ammarpad (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I had originally closed this as a clear keep. However, after being requested to look into this by the nominator, I got curious and ran a check using Earwig's tool...and given the results I'm struggling to come up with a good reason not to speedy delete, or at least blank, this as WP:COPYVIO, and have accordingly relisted it in case somebody can supply a good reason why it isn't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Bushranger:, I will try to rewrite it. The sheer volume of resources about this topic is what made me to missed that problem, which is also unbeknown to me, since the article wasn't tagged as such. Nonetheless, we don't normally brought copyvio in AfD (in my knowledge), when I read his nom statement, it is clear to me he meant this is not place to host what one journal published i.e OR, and I searched for sources and find quite opposite. If it were clear CV he should have G11'd it, or take it to appropriate noticeboard if bit hesitant. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, which is another reason I didn't outright blank it myself. I will not object if any patrolling admin does so, of course. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad'a dismissive and insulting claims aside, Wikipedia is not a host of primary articles on the topic. Wikipedia is not here to help researchers promote their personal take on a topic. If there is a valid encyclopaedia article to be written on this topic, this is not it. Copying what I wrote on The Bushrangers talk when asking for rethinking, 1, claiming that it is not original research shows a misunderstanding about how science research works. People are meant to do research. That's what gets published. A straight out copy of that research is still that research. 2, claiming that it is not just rehosting when the link provided in the nomination Cleary proves that it is just rehosting. duffbeerforme (talk)

@Duffbeerforme: Please can you show me that specific "insulting remark" towards you so that I strike it? And I apologize for it in advance. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained before, I wrote the Wiley encyclopedia entry in 2006 (originally in 2003, for Nature/Macmillan, who then transferred it to Wiley in 2006); I only granted Nature/Macmillan/Wiley the non-exclusive right to publish it, but did not transfer copyright to Nature/Macmillan/Wiley (I am an open access advocate): I retained copyright and also posted the article on WP in 2006^[1]. Then, when asked recently by Patar knight this December 2017 to put the original text in the pulic domain to make sure WP is not violating copyright, I did that too: Ticket#2017120110008571] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_perception to Alfred Neumann, followed by a link to a copy of the original^[2]. Now the WP page has changed a lot across the years since 2006; that's why the WP entry is no longer identical to the verbatim 2006 encyclopedia entry -- but that is what happens with WP entries: they keep getting edited and updated. And an encyclopedia entry, whether in Wiley's Enyclopedia of Cognitive Science^[3] or in Wikipedia is just that: an encylopedia entry, not original research. --User:Harnad (talk) 20:45, 10 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Margeli[edit]

Dario Margeli (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 and WP:NMUSIC. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe article in discussion seams to have been last updated in 2013 and the article already contains many valuable references. After that there have been many news articles that have appeared on the person subject of the article, and therefore this article should be valid and should continue to exist in Wikipedia. The artist is relevant to the music scene, particularly in the Italian language indie-music community. Here are some articles that have appeared in independent reputable websites and blogs after 2013:

  In English:

http://www.obscuresound.com/2016/09/dario-margeli-im-not-brain/

http://emergingindiebands.com/dario-margeli-non-inseguire-i-sogni-video/

http://www.thesirenssound.com/2016/09/19/new-single-from-dario-margeli-im-not-my-brain/

http://skopemag.com/2016/10/28/dario-margeli-im-not-my-brain-video

http://mi2n.com/press.php3?press_nb=181440

http://verycooltunes.com/2015/02/16/dario-margeli-five-little-things/

http://top40-charts.com/news/Pop-Rock/Dario-Margeli-Releases-Five-Little-Things/107530.html

http://www.electrowow.net/2017/09/caught-up-in-a-vortex-bolmer-remix.html

In Italian:

http://musictraks.com/2014/09/21/le-cinque-cose-di-dario-margeli-traks/

http://www.rockambula.com/cose-singolo-video-per-dario-margeli/

http://www.mescalina.it/musica/news/4500/dariomargeli

http://oubliettemagazine.com/2014/03/13/dario-margeli-torna-con-il-nuovo-singolo-il-sole-e-le-palme-il-filtro-magico-che-fa-rivivere-i-bei-momenti/

Italian Radio:

https://radiosenisenews.it/2017/10/28/il-cantautore-dario-margeli-pubblica-una-nuova-canzone-dal-titolo-come-reagire/

Italian music charts: The artist also appears regularly charting on the Italian independent artists music chart. There is no direct link, as these charts get updated and the link to the old charts get deleted. There is a snapshot of such charts on the artists official site https://dariomargeli.wordpress.com/press-links/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayumadehrafti (talk • 13:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)contribs) 09:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom as artist seems to be too trivial. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the artist is relevant in the independent rock community in Italy and has also appearances on websites in English speaking countries and Spain. Non of the references are trivial. For example, the artist has mentions in Rockit.it website, which is the 3rd most important music website in Italy (In terms of Alexa traffic and Facebook followers). There are articles in the very busy and exclusive Vice magazine on the artist. There are 16,100 results in a Google Search for the artists. In addition to the references in the main article and the references mentioned in previous points of this article, you can find even more articles on the artist:

- Spain music journal example (In Spanish): https://mirolloeselindie.wordpress.com/2017/01/02/things-that-are-ok-about-me-el-nuevo-trabajo-de-dario-margeli/ http://muzikalia.com/la-playlist-emergente-la-semana-2/

- More Italy examples (In Italian): http://indiepercui.altervista.org/dario-margeli-mente-autoproduzione/

http://oubliettemagazine.com/2014/03/13/dario-margeli-torna-con-il-nuovo-singolo-il-sole-e-le-palme-il-filtro-magico-che-fa-rivivere-i-bei-momenti/

The artist is relevant in these regions. Editors should be aware that there is a music community beyond the English-language media. The artist also has mentions in English language media as described earlier in the earlier points of this dicussion.

Nayumadehrafti (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • You've already !voted keep once, so I've struck your second !vote. The sources you've provided do not appear to meet WP:RS. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 08:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hey Rob₁₃ you mention meeting WP:RS stnadard. I have looked at WP:RS and as mentioned in previous notes on these pages, many of the sources are from "well-established news outlets". That is in Italy. To facilitate your work we even provided a page that does analysis on which are the important music news outlets in Italy. Here is an article that analyzes which are the important music news outlets in Italy, and given that some the articles on this individual appear on these sites, the WP:RS requirement of "well established new outlets" is perfectly met. http://www.fabriziogalassi.com/2015/06/15/quali-sono-i-siti-musicali-piu-influenti-in-italia-la-classifica-di-maggio-2015/ --Nayumadehrafti (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a blog post, not an article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey Rob₁₃ Fabrizio Galassi is a music industry researcher. His site, which you call blog does research on what sites are most influential in music in Italy. If you don't like his research, you can do one yourself and you will find out that the important music information websites in Italy are the one's that appear in his article. Just because you live in Seattle doesn't mean that significant music news outlets in other countries suddenly don't count. In Seattle you may read Pitchfork, in Italy they read Rockit.it. --Nayumadehrafti (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People know who this artist is in Italy. --Eurovacationexpert (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC) Sock !vote struck. GAB^gab 17:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Not enough coverage. This can change in the future. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 16 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Kamal Higher Secondary College[edit]

Al-Kamal Higher Secondary College (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:V. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Kamal Boys High School (2nd nomination), which may be about the same subject. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm. well this is difficult. At present I've been trying to verify that it even exists, and the best I can find is [25] - which is a Punjab government document which has the address as "Gulshan Saeed Colony Mullan Wala Road Near Al-Kamal Boys High School Jampur". This is thin, but it does at least give a little hope that other sources may exist to show that the school exists. JMWt (talk) 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also a mention [26] and [27]. I've just read above that this might be the same as this other recent AfD - [28] so I've now no idea which is which. Or if they're the same thing. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - on balance I think that relevant sources might exist, but it doesn't seem possible to verify that they're actually talking about the subject of this page. If someone is local to the school, one would think that they could find local sources to clarify the name and show it exists. But in the absence of those arguments, the evidence is too thin IMO. JMWt (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 12:23, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no independent WP:RS covers significantly to pass WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:55, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No WP:RS. The recent AFD was conclusive enough. D4iNa4 (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merely existing is not enough to show something is notable. It is time that we start giving the same sorts of notability considerations to schools we give to other organizations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 13 December 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 merge to Evolutionary developmental biology. @Elmidae: You seem to have a good idea of what can be usefully merged, perhaps you could do the honours? – Joe (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Developmental Drive[edit]

Developmental Drive (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 a repository for essays.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial merge to Evolutionary developmental biology. This article is too much a a sweeping messay to be useful in its current form. The 'History' and 'Developmental Reprogramming' sections are already covered in the above article; sections 3 & 4 might find use (shortened and de-essayed) in Evolutionary_developmental_biology#The_origins_of_novelty, or maybe better Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance or a similar more specialized article. All in all, the subject area has been pretty well covered on WP and while the examples are useful, this detail does not merit a full article with historical run-up. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (or possibly merge elements) to Evolutionary developmental biology, as per Elmidae. Rather than an essay, the CopyVio report suggests it's more of a reworking, but not a simplification of, the Nature reference. Looks like a college project, but nothing on the article creator's page to indicate one way or another.Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 15 December 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. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wax Dey[edit]

Wax Dey (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)

Does not satisfy musical notability. Google search does not find significant third-party coverage, only vanity hits.

Article needs a lot of cleanup. This could be solved if notability could be established. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has references for verification, you can check the references 1 and the source, the article wins Best Male artist in central Africa Music Award in Nigeria.He is also an Ambassador to the UNAbanda bride (talk) 07:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems to have won several national and international awards and has reliable sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Article needs serious heavy cleanup. Article contains reliable sources but doesn't really satisfy musical notability. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. J947 ^{(c · m)} 06:11, 14 December 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. Sandstein 14:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]