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

The result was Procedural close – already deleted via CSD WP:G3 by Fabrictramp. (non-admin closure) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Rawson[edit]

Paul Rawson (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)

• Possible fake biography, completely lacking any reliable sources (couldn't find any with Google). Even if we believe his IMDb entry to be credible, there's no proof he was ever more than a bit player – despite claims being chased by fans as a child star in the 80s. You can find „cinema posters“ of obviously fake movies in the internet, who didn't even make it into the IMDb – of course it's easier to trick IMDb admins by adding cast members than a whole fake movie starring Shannen Doherty. The article and the four pictures were all made by User:Claireburrows. King Rk (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The fake movie indeed had an IMDb entry once, see archived page, but obviously got deleted. --King Rk (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The infobox image on the page looks weird, like it was photoshopped somehow. The Pee Wee Herman Show premiere pictures also look odd, but what raises suspicion is that the photos are dated February 3, 2016. They were uploaded on February 7, so this would presumably be when the photos were taken. Now what is wrong with this image is that there was no premiere for the Pee-Wee Herman Show during 2016. There was a premiere back in 2010, but the only Pee-Wee release last year was the film, which premiered at SXSW. I also can't really find any other images from 2016 with that background, which is also suspicious. I might not scrutinize these so carefully except that there's suspicion of this being a hoax. As far as the IMDb film removal, IMDb typically only does that when something's been proven false or probably when the filmmaker requests deletion, which would likely be counterproductive for them if they still plan on making the film. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find anything out there for this guy. At best he's a guy who only played extreme bit parts and never got any attention. However what's very suspicious here is the complete lack of mention of him anywhere. Normally if someone played that many roles there would be a mention here or there, even if it was in one of those film books that just catalog a movie and all of its credited actors. I can't see where he has any mention in these places and some of these films are notable enough to have articles, so it stands to reason that he'd be mentioned somewhere, especially if he was known enough to go on to the Sharon Osborne show as himself and was invited to movie premieres. There's also a lack of general fan chatter as well and the only place that does seem to cover him is a blog written last year. I'm leaning towards a likely hoax, honestly. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:15, 25 January 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. There are enough sources presented to demonstrate that this is a concept, not merely a definition. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetheart deal[edit]

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

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

Per WP:EUPHEMISM. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, cliche or euphemistic terms. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. sixtynine ^{• speak up •} 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge The point of WP:DICDEF is not that we should delete short articles; it says exactly the opposite. Its point is that we should cover topics under a single heading; not have separate pages for each name. But what is this also known as? What is it a euphemism for? Let's try some links to see where they lead. The worst case is that we'll merge into one of these. Cronyism; Favouritism; Favoritism; Nepotism; Revolving door; Regulatory capture; Preferential treatment. Hmm... it's amusing to find that Favouritism and Favoritism lead to different pages. Now which title do we prefer...? Andrew D. (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Weir, Robert E.; Hanlan, James P. (2004). Historical Encyclopedia of American Labor. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 478. ISBN 0313328641. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

     The book notes:

     Sweetheart contract is a sarcastic term for bargaining agreements worked out secretly between a few union officers and management without the input or even knowledge of rank-and-file unionists. Historically, such arrangements have been associated with corrupt practices by either party and usually involve a kickback to a labor official. The American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations condemned this method as a violation of trade union ethics. Although the practice was never widespread, except in a handful of local and national unions with ties to organized crime, most corrupt vestiges had been eliminated by the start of the twenty-first century. The term itself, however, lingers on in the lexicon of the rank and file as a simile for an unpopular contract, even if it was negotiated legally. Some union leaders simply find it easier to work out an agreement in private and then sell the contract to a skeptical membership, or purposefully avoid grassroots involvement fearing that the rank and file will not understand the larger issues...

  2. Main, Carla T. (2007). Bulldozed: "Kelo," Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land. New York: Encounter Books. p. 62. ISBN 1594032890. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

     The book notes:

     For twenty-six years, Poletown stood as a textbook example of a sweetheart deal between a private business and a municipality. The term "sweetheart contract" was coined in the 1940s to describe a deal between labor and management that is favorable to the employer and is entered into without the approval of the workers. Today people talk about sweetheart contracts or agreements in other contexts, often to describe deals that benefit outfits doing business with municipalties.

  3. Palmatier, Robert Allen (2000). Food: A Dictionary of Literal and Nonliteral Terms. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 352. ISBN 0313314365. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

     The book notes:

     Sweetheart contract a sweetheart contract. A privately arranged "contract" between an employer and a union official. MWCD: 1942. Source: SWEET. MWCD: O.E. A sweetheart (MWCD: 14th cent.) is someone who is both loved and loving, such as a spouse, a lover, or a child. The word is used as both a term of endearment and a term of address ("Sweetheart, would you bring me a glass of water?") and is equivalent to "Darling." The implication is that the heart is a sea of love, and that a person so addressed has an abundance of it. A sweetheart contract, however, involves a pair of rather odd "lovers": the boss of the company and the boss of the workers, who are carrying on a secret "affair" for their mutual benefit. The unwritten "contract" allows management to get away with actions that are forbidden by law or by the written contract without the shareholders or the rest of the employees knowing anything about it. Sweetheart contracts are also made at the government level, between public officials and executives of private companies, often involving favoritism by the former and kickbacks for the latter. A sweetheart deal (EWPO: ca. 1900) between two friends is expected to profit both of them, provided that the law and their relatives don't get wind of it. If it works, however, it is regarded as a sweetheart of a deal. DAP; DAS; DEOD; MS. See also Sweet Deal.

  4. Richards, Lawrence (2008). Union-Free America: Workers and Antiunion Culture. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. p. 60. ISBN 0252032713. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

     The book notes:

     The consequences of union racketeering for workers were not only a lack of democracy within the union and the threat of violence associated with mobster rule, but lost pay because of "sweetheart contracts." According to Lester Velie, "the most heartless racket in labor is the sale to crooked employers of 'sweetheart contracts' that depress the wages of the captive union members." Likewise, Life magazine listed as one of the many crimes that the McClellan Committee brought to light the "betrayal of the union members through substandard contracts with employers." To protect workers, the editors of Life urged Congress to pass a law that would prohibit "sweetheart contracts."

  5. Holley, William H.; Ross, William H.; Wolters, Roger S. (2017). The Labor Relations Process (11 ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning. p. 70. ISBN 1305576209. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

     The book notes:

     There was also a public perception fostered by employers and media accounts that much of organized labor was corrupt and subject to control by socialists and communists even though many AFL leaders were consistently anti-communist. Racketeering had become a feature of some local union-employer relationships. For example, in one incident a union official signed a two-paragraph agreement with three major employers guaranteeing no wage increase for three years and requiring all employees to join the union or be discharged. None of the employees had ever contacted the union about joining, nor did they ever see a union official during the life of the contract. This type of sweetheart contract was often coupled with financial kickbacks from the employer to the union official, meaning the employer paid the union official a portion of the labor cost savings achieved by the employer.

  6. Sweetheart deals discussed in non-union contexts:
     1. Mathis, Klaus, ed. (2014). Law and Economics in Europe: Foundations and Applications. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media. p. 246. ISBN 940077110X. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        Sweetheart Settlements

        Opponents of the class action lawsuit warn about a "sell-out" of the class by the class representative (lead plaintiff). The defendant and a the group lawyer, it is feared, have a joint incentive to reach a settlement that promises the group lawyer a generous fee and at the same time allocates the class members less than they are entitled to, based on the value of their claims. Sweetheart settlements result from a conflict of interest between the group lawyer and the group he represents. The danger of such a sweetheart agreement is aggravated by the fact that the courts are often ill-equipped to uncover them. The judge has limited information and therefore finds it difficult to estimate the value of the claims and to verify whether the amount of compensation is adequate.

     2. Thornhill, William T. (1981). Complete Handbook of Operational and Management Auditing. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 481. ISBN 0131611410. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        ... As a result, "sweetheart" deals do occur and the auditors should be constantly thinking of that potential. There are really two levels of sweetheart deal. A simple sweetheart arrangement involves only two banks. A complex sweetheart arrangement exists when three or more banks are involved. What is a sweetheart deal? It is when one dealer makes an accommodation deal with another dealer to reduce or to cover a loss the first dealer has incurred in another transaction(s). That creates a situation where the first dealer owes the second dealer a favor, which I.O.U. may be called for payment at any time, creating another sweetheart deal. It may be days, weeks, or months, or potentially never that the second dealer calls upon the first dealer for repayment of the favor. In effect, the dealer making the sweetheart deal takes a deliberate loss for his company to help out a friend at another company.

        2. There is a second type of sweetheart deal, which I prefer to call a "booking" or "accomodation" deal. That is, when two banks have different closing dates and they use each other to match deals at their regular FX revaluation dates. Let us assume that Bank 1 uses the 23rd and Bank 2 uses the 26th as their regular monthly FX revaluation dates. ...

     3. Reilly, John W. (2000). The Language of Real Estate (5 ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Real Estate Education (Kaplan, Inc.). p. 390. ISBN 0793131936. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart contract A slang expression to describe a situation where a developer hires a thinly disguised subsidiary company to manage the developer's project. Most state condominium laws regulate the use of sweetheart contracts and make them subject to cancelation by the homeowner's association.

  7. Dictionary definitions
     1. Webster's II New College Dictionary. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 1999. p. 1114. ISBN 0395962145. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart deal n. A deal arranged by collusion between union officers and an employer, the terms of which are disadvantageous to union members.

     2. Robinson, Mairi; Davidson, George, eds. (2001). Chembers 21 Century Dictionary. New Delhi: Allied Publishers. p. 1429. ISBN 8186062262. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart agreement, sweetheart contract and sweetheart deal ▷ noun an agreement between an employer and trade union officials, especially those of a local union branch, which is excessively favourable to the employer and usually to the advantage of the union officials but which is detrimental to the interests of the workers concerned.

     3. Green, Jonathon (2005). Cassell's Dictionary of Slang. London: Sterling Publishing. p. 1397. ISBN 0304366366. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        sweetheart contract n. (also sweetheart deal) [1950s+] (origin. US) a union-employer contract that favours the company over its employees; a union-employer contract that favours all those negotiating, but not the workers the union supposedly represents.

     4. Ciment, James (2005). Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia. Armonk, New York: Routledge. ISBN 1317459709. Retrieved 2017-01-19.

        The book notes:

        Sweetheart contract

        A collective bargaining agreement in which the firm pays the union negotiator to develop a substandard agreement and sell it to the membership. The Landrum-Griffen Act attempted to eliminate this type of bargaining.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow sweetheart deal to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the term falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#When a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject because there is substantial coverage about sweetheart deals in the context of unions. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the article be expanded? Right now its just a simple definition. Are there any examples of sweetheart deals which were notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles? Dream Focus 12:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Dream Focus that this article is really just a definition that might not be able to be expanded any more. The sources posted above look like definitions (although some are encyclopedic definitions). I haven't seen this written about, as the subject of articles in academic journals. - tucoxn\^talk 06:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• although some are encyclopedic definitions – that there are encyclopedic definitions of "sweetheart deal" in encyclopedias like Historical Encyclopedia of American Labor indicates that it is a concept, not merely a dictionary definition.

  This has been the subject of articles in academic journals. Examples:

  1. Krebs, Thomas G. (October 1979). "The Legislative Response to Sweetheart Management Contracts: Protecting the Condominium Purchaser". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 55 (2). Chicago-Kent College of Law: 319–335. Archived from the original on 2012-02-07. Retrieved 2017-02-07.
  2. Slaughter, Jane (Fall 2003). "Sweetheart Contracts Are No Answer". New Labor Forum. 12 (3). Routledge: 74–79. Retrieved 2017-02-07.
  3. "UAW-Hm Saturn Contract: Sweetheart Deal or Novel Labor-Management Agreement" by Jeffrey L. Hall at http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/umem17&div=18&id=&page=
  Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning towards delete, unless somebody can come up with better sources that go into the subject more in depth. Bearian (talk) 14:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are more sources:
  1. Gall, Gregor, ed. (2003). Union Organizing: Campaigning for Trade Union Recognition. New York: Routledge. p. 91. ISBN 1134497733. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

     The book notes:

     The re-emergence of single union and sweetheart deals
     
     Single union and "sweetheart" deals are now back in vogue, after a period of absence since the late 1980s (see Gall 1993). Some employers have recognized the question they face is not one of granting or not granting recognition but to which union should recognition be granted and with what type of deal. This results from "irrestible" requests by virtue of the strength of union membership and organization, possible disruption to industrial relations, and likely poor company image resulting from an industrial dispute, or pre-emptive moves to ward against unwelcome unions campaigning for recognition. In this situation, the key questions become which union and deal best suit the empoyer's interests. ...

     ...

     With "sweetheart agreements," employers are attempting to set the terms by which recognition is granted whether this be with an "appropriate" or "inappropriate" union in order to lessen the influence of the union and maintain managerial prerogative. This may take the form of a weakened union presence where the union is unable to deliver membership benefits, the membership is passive, and the union lacks independence and has to continually struggle to assert its legitimacy. Ultimately, this could pave the way for derecognition and non-unionism. The most obvious means by which employers seek this are the explicit "no disruption" clauses or those which impose arbitration and, thus, lengthen the time by which it may be procedurally correct to ballot for industrial action. However, an array of other means is also being imposed by employers. These include pay freezes, representation for non-union workers in consultative forums, "partnership" provisions, and the absence of the normal bi-lateral channels for conducting collective bargaining in. ...

  2. Chung, Kae H.; Yi, Hak-chong; Jung, Kyu Hyun (1997). Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 311014669X. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

     The book notes:

     The exclusiveness of a single local union could create serious problems for the labor movement. A small management-favored union, commonly known as sweetheart union, could exclude a competing union, even one with a large membership, in collective bargaining (Kim, 1994). A case in point was the labor dispute at the Hyundai shipyard in 1987. A small labor union at the shipyard was organized in July 21, 1987 upon the successful completion of its registration. A week later, a large group of workers at the plant, claiming that the union was a sweetheart union, demanded that Hyundai to expel the small union. The employer, under the pressure, agreed to do so, but the union resisted by charging management with interfering in the normal activities of a legally-constituted union. Because the employer was unable to expel the existing union, thousands of workers from eleven Hyundai membership companies engaged in violent demonstrations for several days. These discords eventually led to a long and violent strikes in 1988. To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote.

     The protests were discussed in UPI here and in The New York Times here.

     Are there any examples of sweetheart deals which were notable enough to get their own Wikipedia articles? – Dream Focus (talk · contribs), this is currently a subsection of an article at June Struggle#1987 Great Labor Action. Based on the numerous sources about the protests stemming from this "sweetheart union", it would be notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article.

  3. Elk, Mike (2014-02-17). "Sweetheart Deals Hurt Labor". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-02-07. Retrieved 2017-02-07.

     The article notes:

     Several unions have agreed to “sweetheart deals” with employers to win neutrality, and in exchange, “pre-agree” to employer sought contract concessions that cap wages before even organizing a single member. A 2008 Wall Street Journal report uncovered how Unite Here and the Service Employees International Union clandestinely negotiated contracts with Sodexo and Aramark without any traditional labor organizing. Under this arrangement, members were unaware that labor contracts were negotiated prior to joining the union. In Chattanooga, antiunion workers successfully persuaded Volkswagen workers, who had previously signed union cards indicating support for the U.A.W., that such a deal undercutting them was already in the works.

  Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary says (in part):

  Criteria	Wikipedia	Wiktionary
  Article subjects	a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth.	the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. The entry octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

  The sources here demonstrate that sweetheart deal is not merely a "definition" (Wiktionary); it is instead a "concept" (Wikipedia). It is a concept about how unions make "sweetheart deals" with employers. The encyclopedia article would discuss how in South Korea, a sweetheart union was used to hurt employees by giving them a sweetheart deal of subpar benefits and wages and preventing them from joining other unions because of the wikt:single union agreement. And the Wikipedia article could further discuss that in South Korea "To avoid such pitfalls, the law was revised in 1996 to allow multiple unions at a plant or select one on a majority vote" (quoting from the book Korean Management: Global Strategy and Cultural Transformation). Information like this demonstrates that "sweetheart deal" goes beyond a dictionary definition and is a concept.

  Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Overview: encyclopedia vs dictionary further says:

  One test is that an encyclopedia article's name can usually easily take many different equivalent forms, whereas a dictionary as a linguistic work is about the words in the title, and cannot usually be easily translated.

  This article's name can take "many different equivalent forms" like "sweetheart agreement", "sweetheart contract" and "sweetheart deal".

  Cunard (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A big sweetheart deal political controversy has just broken in the UK http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38908462 --Penbat (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the sources presented show that this is a concept, not merely a definition. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – This is a concept and term, rather than a dictionary definition. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:04, 10 February 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 in accordance with WP:CSD#G5. Article was created by a sockpuppet in violation of a block. ~Anachronist (talk)

Clinical (film)[edit]

Clinical (film) (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:NFILM. IMDB and Netflix are not reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 23:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It a Netflix original film, so there's a fair chance it's notable. These things often get a bit of attention. There are lots of announcements scattered about, but I've never really counted them as significant coverage. As far as reviews go, I found [1] from Scream magazine. I'm having trouble finding reviews in the usual places, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Murad Gazdiev[edit]

Murad Gazdiev (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 journalist. The entire article is based on one unreliable source (facebook) and one affiliated source; and in fact is original research. XXN, 23:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability. FWIW, Russian Wikipedia does not have an article on him. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No claim of notability. TheMagikCow (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Lutz[edit]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. I do see a few articles in the Pasadena Star News and a few minor mentions in the Los Angeles Times, but nothing that I think establishes GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Also fails WP:BASIC. All coverage is trivial. AusLondonder (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Monrovia CA is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability under WP:NPOL just because they exist — but the referencing here is 85 per cent primary sources and blogs with just one piece of routine local coverage in the local media about the election results for reliable sourcing, which is nowhere near enough to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I think. There is one piece where she is described and even quoted, but it's really just about an election, not her. And that seems to be it, at least as currently in the article. WP:BIO want's multiple in-depth pieces. Monrovia has 40,000 people so it's not Podunk, but still... not large enough to presume that being mayor is enough, I don't don't think. Falls into the Just Another Accomplished Person category I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:40, 7 February 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. Uncontested.  Sandstein  05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InkMonstarr[edit]

InkMonstarr (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs and barely any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Only claim to notability is a relatively minor rap beef, which would indicate this is a WP:1E situation. No charted singles on Billboard. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 17:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Su Griffin[edit]

Danny Su Griffin (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:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as only sourcing are announcements and mentions, there's no genuine substance in notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Milano[edit]

Derrick Milano (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:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. One secondary source was referenced in the article. No charted songs. Not yet notable. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as sources here are only mere announcements and mentions and bestow no automatic notability regardless, including when that's all there is. SwisterTwister talk 03:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Sagovsky[edit]

Vladimir Sagovsky (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 meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Film editors very rarely receive significant coverage in reliable independent sources. XXN, 11:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or any other standards here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asis1990 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Durden[edit]

Dominic Durden (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. His death was used as a political prop by a certain political candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• del absolutely no claim of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, this individual has received some media coverage, but all of it is about this death, and the means thereof: I do not therefore believe that this demonstrates notability, at the scale that it is. Of course, beyond a certain point even that sort of coverage must grant notability (eg Trayvon Martin) but I do not think this rises to anywhere near that level: we are looking at less than a 100 sources. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and others. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:54, 6 February 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  05:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Khadun[edit]

Sheetal Khadun (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)

Here's a contestant (not winner) at some beauty pageants. De-PRODded with the edit summary "Miss Universe contestants are almost always notable". This is a notability criterion I'm unaware of and would like to see if community consensus exists to that fact. This would seem to me to be in contravention of WP:BLP1E and common sense. Brianhe (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Comment [Addition: Fails GNG. All coverage is routine and around one event. Based on searches in Lexis, Newsbank, and three Mauritius newspapers. If there's a consensus for keeping such individuals, please post it.] I'm the one that de-PRODed it because it has been asserted elsewhere that there is a 'consensus' that Miss Universe contestants are presumed to have notability(see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Radonjić, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Winfrida Dominic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delia Duca). In both discussions, one repeats on two pages, the claim is made to a consensus or repeated practice holding that Miss Universe participants, as winners of national competitions, have some presumption of notability. I agree wholeheartedly with Brianhe that I don't know if that is true. Worth de-proding, but using GNG criteria, the subject of this article appears to fail notability for basic coverage in RSs. (Probably will change to delete, but following the conversation). AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strictly by the numbers, being crowned Miss Mauritius is about half as notable as being crowned Queen of Riverside County Fair and National Date Festival (Riverside County pop 2M, Mauritius pop 1M). As there are over 40 U.S. counties of >1M population, I wouldn't expect such a person to be presumed notable for Wikipedia in the latter case per WP:MILL, so why should the former enjoy inherent notability? It's silly. - Brianhe (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be the last discussion of the issue at the larger Notability boards. There was no consensus to add Pageant winners. The argument for notability is that the large global pageants (Miss World and Miss Universe) are prominent enough that they are likely to generate significant RS coverage for the national-level nominees. Indeed, Sheetal Khadun received regular coverage in major national newspapers of Mauritius (see: here, here, etc.) Here's what I'm convinced by: Does she pass GNG? Taking into account WP:BLP1E or WP:ROUTINE...it seems not to right now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as only claims here are for merely participating, that's not what signified actual independent notability. SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait...she did win multiple national-level competitions, right? Whether those are significant is a good question, whether they confer some presumption of notability is a good question, but it is incorrect to state that her only claim is mere participation. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think what SwisterTwister means is that the RS coverage is about participation at Miss World and Miss Universe, where she apparently was not awarded. We can't seem to find anything about the Mauritius lead-up to her participation in the notable pageants. Which isn't surprising given the low population and disadvantaged media situation there (also possible-to-probable lack of English language media). - Brianhe (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This would be the argument for presuming notability for Miss World and Miss Universe contestants: Because, of course there was coverage of the lead-up to the international competitions. See: here, here, here, etc. All RSs. (Once again, if we use GNG with a strict interpretation of Routine, she doesn't appear to pass, but any other standard should result in Keep it seems to me). AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Yurov[edit]

Andrey Yurov (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)

Bad sources: affiliated and inexact(1, 3). Not sure if has individual notability. XXN, 20:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable human rights activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Sokolenko[edit]

Konstantin Sokolenko (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 nordic skiing athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He competed in World Champs in 2007 and 2009 and was national champion in 2005/2006 season ([2]). Moreover he later switched to ski jumping (in which he still competes), where he competed in World Champs in 2013 and also got medals in national champs (gold and bronze in 2014 - [3] and bronze in 2016 - [4]). So he is definitely enough "notable". 99kerob (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that. I'd like to request a withdrawal of this AFD, in light of the new information. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:55, 5 February 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  05:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Nijinska[edit]

Irina Nijinska (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)

Lack of individual notability. Redirect to Bronislava Nijinska. XXN, 20:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Her career was devoted to her mother's legacy, but she earned her own notability doing so, responsible for producing and staging multiple important productions over the years and with many companies. (Examples: [5][6]) She received news obituaries in major papers like The New York Times [7], Los Angeles Times [8], and Associated Press [9] , which is a benchmark for notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the obits are impressive. Clearly notable in her own right. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:37, 4 February 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. Ultimately uncontested.  Sandstein  05:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Tyger Church[edit]

The Red Tyger Church (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 meet any of the criteria under WP:BAND. Rogermx (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• They did get a little attention: New Times Broward-Palm Beach: "Red Tyger Church is the latest band from the (San Francisco Bay) region and possibly the most dynamic example yet of how the Berkeley scene is exploding with some of the most creative ideas in the name of rock since the original San Fran (or London) heyday of the 1960s. Yet another collective that functions as much as an idea as a band, the group seems to be floating down the same tributary as recent Jonestown. "Welcome," the grand finale, is a saintly send-up of awesome proportions that rivals the best of euphoric late-'60s bliss with its male/female vocals and up-against-the-wall vitality. Like the Jonestown and Warlocks before them, Red Tyger Church seems to have absorbed the dense grandeur of the Stones circa Beggar's Banquet through Exile on Main Street -- maracas abound, and tracks build to explosive crescendos." From a review of 2 touring bands; "The Red Tyger Church; Free Energy," (Harrington, Joe S. Broward - Palm Beach New Times; Fort Lauderdale, Fla. [Fort Lauderdale, Fla] 12 Feb 2004) [10].E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is one legitimate source- thank you for researching it. Do you think is sufficient for them? Rogermx (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete All I know I learned here or in a search of Proquest news archive; the sole article that came up is certainly insufficient to support an article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:55, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Stefkovich[edit]

Jim Stefkovich (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)

Bureaucrat for a local branch of the National Weather Service who has received mostly local coverage upon retiring. The Washington Post article that quotes him covers his office installing broadcast equipment, not him personally. Fails WP:GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:50, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Camukova[edit]

Nadia Camukova (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)

Known for a single event; fails WP:SINGLEEVENT. Last claim in article is cited with unreliable sources. Lack of permanent individual notability. XXN, 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- an unremarkable scam artist. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three-R-One[edit]

Three-R-One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unreferenced article on a non-notable band. It does not pass WP:GNG. PROD template was removed but no reason given. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are articles on the band's albums and record label and are equally unreferenced and non-notable:

Labor Of Love (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He'll Be There For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Cure (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chosen (Three-R-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A New Song (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a VERY notable band compared to many of the ones I have seen on Wikipedia. I have seen some pages for bands that have been around for 1 year or less and have never even recorded an album. If their pages haven't been deleted yet then I don't know why on earth this one is. They have released 5 professional albums and have been featured on multiple popular music websites and have been around for over 14 years. If you plan on trying to delete this page I want a MUCH better explanation than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the band is notable then this needs to be proven. The band, albums and record label are considered notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). I cannot see any references in the articles to indicate notability. With regard to other bands, the relevant policy is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBAND may also be useful. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. A prime example of a walled garden. I could find no reliable references on any of the topics. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable band. - TheMagnificentist 19:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This band is highly notable, if you don't believe me then look at the references. If you want to delete the page you need much more evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Consumingfire1 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 February 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 speedily deleted by Versageek per CSD#G10 (attack page). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Earl Blackfoot[edit]

Joseph Earl Blackfoot (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)

Procedural nomination as declined CSD: I don't have any particular view on this AfD. The main concern noted in the CSD nomination was notability, per the notability guidelines for criminals and guidelines for people significant in association to a single event. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This page is a violation of WP:BLPCRIME as the subject of the article has not been convicted of this crime. Also a violation of WP:BLP1E.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a copyright infringement of http://m.imdb.com/title/tt3305192/plotsummary and a number of other websites. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

63lbs[edit]

63lbs (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 third-party references, only IMDB and Facebook. No evidence of film notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. And the article's creator made this too. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per nom. I also have a speedy deletion going for that, to. Our friend was also just blocked and his user page was deleted after I put a tag on it. Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 20:47, 2 February 2017 comment .......And the other one was just deleted by User:RickinBaltimore. Layla ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 20:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above: no evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 09:36, 4 February 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  05:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adriatica McKinney, Texas[edit]

Adriatica McKinney, Texas (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 indication of passing WP:GNG. Also appears to be a recreation of previously deleted material... Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article is a recreation of a previously deleted title, yet the content is different. This page may not pass WP:GNG regardless, but it is not eligible for WP:G4. Garchy (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy: is it possible for you to restore the deleted content for us non-admins to view? Perhaps to the talk page of the article or a draft space? Would be helpful for comparison. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the point? IIRC there was nothing salvageable in the previous version, and an admin has already declined a G4 nomination. VQuakr (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards delete - the "Time Money" bit on Youtube isn't an interview, it's just a paid spot of the creator plugging his product. That leaves several cites to D Magazine, which is probably too local in coverage to pass the intellectual independence requirement of the GNG. That leaves a different and very short news blurb from 2009 and as noted in the last AfD, the Croatian source is mostly quotes of press releases. VQuakr (talk) 04:27, 3 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Life in Pictures[edit]

Life in Pictures (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)

Band that likely didn't meet notability in 2011, and still doesn't seem to. Released one EP and one record on two non-notable labels, and then dissolved to form another non-notable band. Basically zero coverage of the bands, the members, the labels, as well as the albums. TimothyJosephWood 17:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Like the nominator, I find this article about a minor defunct band from ten years ago pretty pointless and more trouble to maintain than it is worth. Unfortunately though, the band clearly meets the GNG - it has reviews in Punk News and Exclaim!, both of which are reliable per WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. I'll add the sources to the article this weekend if it is kept. --Cerebellum (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tenanoraoi[edit]

Tenanoraoi (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 source found for the "citation needed" template dated from January 2007. Google search gives very few results, and WP:GNG thus fails. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 03:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The one Gbooks search result states that it is a hamlet inside the small village of Taboiaki. Suggest we merge there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The place is not notable at all. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turbomasters[edit]

Turbomasters (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 doesn't establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Transformers (toy line). This group of toys has no independent notability, nor does it have reliable sources discussing them. They are mentioned in the main article on Transformers toys, so a redirect there seems appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I get the impression that no one cares, and I am not convinced that Wikipedia would be better off if this article was kept... Josh Milburn (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 6 February 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penal Code (Malaysia)[edit]

Penal Code (Malaysia) (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 page essentially reproduces the entire penal code, and should be transwikied across to WikiSource as a result. The Historian (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but simpilyfy the structure section (or expanding/removing it) since it is still necessary for the information about the Malaysia penal code (Example like the date enacted etc). NgYShung ^huh? 09:51, 26 January 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. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jim[edit]

Brother Jim (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 have proposed deletion because this article is about an individual who fails to meet WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is about non-notable events in a non-notable person; and is un-sourced, written with a non-neutral POV. The only sources listed is about a general lawsuit that has no notoriety. Five of the sources about the one case are broken links that cannot be verified. The only remaining source is a student paper. A Google search on the individual turns up personal webpages and social media sites GuyWhoLikesToHaveFun (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Creating deletion discussion for Brother Jim

• weak keep The problem is there are few good indepth sources of coverage. However reliable sources can be found to cover him for years. The article is not good at present, and will take work to make useful, but I think he pases notability. I just found info on a 3rd federal law suit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This article has the feel of an ATTACK article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revimedia[edit]

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

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

Article has been repeatedly deleted under WP:G11 and repeatedly recreated by page author. Suggest deletion and salting. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam; no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear advertising alone with advertising sources. SwisterTwister talk 17:50, 5 February 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. Further discussion about a potential merge can occur on an article talk page if desired. Closing this discussion with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jurrassic Exxplosion Phillipic[edit]

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

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

Not notable self-produced release by the band. Never officially released and did not chart. Fails the criteria under WP:NALBUMS. No reviews. Karst (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Foxygen did make this album available to its fans in 2013, as is noted in the article. It comes up frequently in articles, interviews, and reviews (e.g., [11][12][13] ) and substantive information about this massive early effort is probably essential to a full understanding of the band's music. If we don't keep the separate article, deletion would still be undesirable; instead, some of its content ought to be merged (with a redirect) back into the main article, and maybe eventually into a new discography article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 January 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. Although editors agree a rename is needed.  Sandstein  05:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear renaissance in the United States[edit]

Nuclear renaissance in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This seems to be an article about an event that never came to pass, with over half of its text describing various reasons that it didn't happen. Propose deletion or merging as an example under wiktionary:spurious Spaig (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or Rename Most of the content seems well sourced and neutrally written, but the title is very problematic, as the OP notes. Most of the content could be salvaged either by merging it or renaming it something like History of American Nuclear Power in the 21st Century. Even something like that would require some tweaking, so that the article doesn't violate WP:NOTESSAY. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That was more or less my dilemma - the content itself is fine, but the article as is seems more like a place to keep it than a topic in and of itself. Maybe fold some of the larger "tentpoles" into "History of Nuclear Power" and ditch the rest? Spaig (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is decent article about the nuclear industry Fotaun (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I do agree that a rename may be needed, however, this particular topic is notable and is referred to as a "nuclear renaissance" in many academic circles. A simple google scholar search finds numerous reliable results using this phrase. There is even a book titled with it. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:11, 4 February 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 Dennis M. Jones. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis M. Jones Family Foundation[edit]

Dennis M. Jones Family Foundation (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 lacks in depth coverage in reliable sources. The only RS somewhat detailing the foundation is from Biz Journals. The founder, Dennis Jones, is notable but his foundation doesn't seem to meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article, like the sources, is more about the founder than the foundation. No vote as I don't have access the full articles. Gab4gab (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge / Redirect to Dennis M. Jones The material and sources in the article are largely about Dennis M. Jones, not about the foundation. Nothing else found in a Google search to add. Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I also support a redirect to Dennis M. Jones. Meatsgains (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Banmata Ji[edit]

Banmata Ji (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 mostly gibberish. Robert McLenon PRODed it as "By its own statement, provides very little information. Very poorly constructed. Does not add to the encyclopedia in its current state" but that was removed without explanation. The sources seem to be poor and tangential to the alleged deity. Sitush (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-spelled the name of @Robert McClenon: - my apologies. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Anyone can remove a PROD for any reason including a useless reason. I concur that it is mostly gibberish. Maybe its author should contribute to the Wikipedia in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:52, 4 February 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. Note to the nominator: please tag or nominate the redirect you wish to delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lamb Air[edit]

Lamb Air (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)

An article has recently been created. presently (mis)titled TomLamb. This redirect is blocking a move to the correct title. TheLongTone (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I don't want this article deleted, merely the redirect. TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Cycle (2015 film)[edit]

The Cycle (2015 film) (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)

Can't see why this passes WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 14:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The current article references are all to a producers website. Searching found nothing helpful. No coverage found in RSes, no awards. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Gab4gab (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find anything to show that the film is notable. Short films usually don't get a lot of coverage and unfortunately this doesn't look to be an exception, despite having two notable actors in the cast. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:13, 3 February 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 (non-admin closure, deleted by RHaworth). Raymie (t • c) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Bob James and Earl Klugh album)[edit]

(Bob James and Earl Klugh album) (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)

Nothing to suggest why this is a notable recording. Generally I redirect stuff like this to the artist, but since this is a collaboration the target is not obvious. TheLongTone (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nothing here to suggest notability and fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for multiple reasons. First this article is misnamed, as the album is named Cool. Even once renamed it is likely a non-notable per WP:NALBUM. Would suggest creating a redirect from the proper name to the first artist listed in a collaboration, in this case to James.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 18:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no indication of notability Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Speedy. Recreates previously created article that was redirected Cool (Bob James and Earl Klugh album). Postcard Cathy (talk) 21:44, 3 February 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Mengalum boat mishap[edit]

2017 Mengalum boat mishap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A PROD as WP:NOTNEWS removed without any explanation. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. TheLongTone (talk) 14:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. It has more than passing notability, and is not a personal memorial. The list of passengers is perhaps excessive, and could be replaced with just those missing and dead, but that is a content issue, not a reason for deletion.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps not something that will be remembered 20 years from now, but has a little effect on international relations (specifically tourism). The article appears well-developed by the page creator, although I also support removing the unencyclopedic "Passengers and crew" section. Timmyshin (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is definitely notable.It is definitely not a memorial. The article can be more encyclopedic by removing the "passengers and crew" section and mention only the few notable ones. Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 can be a template for this type of article. Cerevisae (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A very well-documented and notable accident. I have also changed the title of the article to the current standard. Nördic Nightfury 17:11, 3 February 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 consolidated with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neath Port Talbot College, the other half of this merger quandary (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 17:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coleg Powys[edit]

Coleg Powys (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 organization is no longer in existence, following a merge. This is causing incorrect information to be displayed on Google which is causing us an issue NPTCGroup (talk) 12:47, 2 February 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 February 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Olusola David, Ayibiowu[edit]

Olusola David, Ayibiowu (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 self-promotional article. Not a single reference to corroborate anything in the article. No sign of notability. Justeditingtoday (talk) 13:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Insufficient notability. QuiteUnusual (talk) 12:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This autobiography has been dumped on us with no attempt to learn or follow the basic norms of writing a Wikipedia article. Apart from that, it's a pity the "references" have gone now, because Refs 7, 8, 9, in this version showed us three of the newspaper clippings, which could be seen as utterly non-neutral and obviously reliant on the artist's own input. We also have this, the only result available online: a newspaper piece from April 2016 whose opening paragraphs are almost identical to the former Ref 8 from November 2008 (and see the comments below it, "find me on Wikipedia"). There is no evidence that notability can be demonstrated as a basis for any article on this topic: Noyster (talk), 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment: Two reason for Disagreement for Article for Deletion Olusola David, Ayibiowu

Hello Justeditingtoday, I totally disagree with your personal interest to this article as being considered for deletion instead of you to help to improve on this article. The reason for creating this article is to promote the Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons as to help improve and contribute to the improvements of the volunteer’s editors in Wikipedia by editing the already existing articles on the Wikipedia encyclopedia and its ongoing activities and programs that promote humanity around the world. For example, Olusola David, Aiyibowu have been contributing photo's and videos to WIKI LOVES AFRICA 2016 Celebrating Africa's Music and Dance on Wikipedia ! This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.WIKI LOVES AFRICA 2016 See the Photo's and Videos 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26 So that’s one the reason why this article by Olusola David, Ayibowu should not be deleted for any reason better for the editors who sees anything wrong it can only help improve on the article instead of proposing its deletion in which I totally disagree for any reason.

* Comment: Secondly another example why I totally disagree is about the contribution that took all my time contribution to the Wikipedia article Wisdom by Olusola David, Ayibiowu also made contribution to the Wisdom on wikipedia page on the 2 feb 2017 by which he wrote Interpretation of Wisdom, Functionality, Naturally, but made it as an addition to the already existing Wisdom on wikipedia through its own user:Interpretation of wisdom/sandbox link. however an instruction was given to him by the Editor who declined the Submission on 28 January 2017 by Dodger67 (talk). The editor said that the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Wisdom instead.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

Delete the review at AFC of a different page has no bearing on the one under discussion here, except insofar as it demonstrates the author's lack of fluency in writing English, which is further reinforced by the incoherence demonstrated here. Sorry, but your English is simply not good enough to write articles here. You should consider writing in your own language instead. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is a serious conflict of interest here. The username of the creator of this article and the article's title are the same. My advice is that the editor should wait till another Wikipedian finds him notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, something I think will not be happening anything soon. Thank you for your donations to Wikiproject Nigeria btw, we appreciate it. Darreg (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

"I think your line of reasoning seems simian" (i.e. 'flaming') will only make things worse by blocking me and also blocked the IP from editing and attacked me for 48 hrs. By recruiting people to your Side" won't help.

For example: You recruited dodger67 mentioned in the earlier comments to point out my mistakes and use it against me with an abusive language mentioned in his comment to insult my personality and attacked me as well as the article. But this is due to poor network connections in which I experienced has I was trying to edit the mistake or errors in the comments, but I was blocked at that moment by Justeditingtoday. Also the contributions I made to wisdom page on Wikipedia by the user: Interpretation of Wisdom/sandbox has been deleted by dodger67 during this discussion through this attitude of recruiting people to your side for "Voting" Olusola David, Ayibiowu Article For Deletion. Remember "The Golden Rule: Treat others how you want to be treated". And also "Talk to people the way you want to be talked to".Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

• Keep

Another reason why Olusola David, Ayibiowu article should be kept and not to be nominated or consider for deletion any longer after this objection, is for historical background of an artist that is now on wikipedia and could serve as an information's from reliable sources, material and instrument for Wikipedia and wikicommons for future use.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk)

• Comment

Finally, I reached the conclusion has I appeal to your sense of justice that this Olusola David, Ayibiowu Article should be prevented from being deleted or nominated for deletion at any time from now on Wikipedia because “Nobody knows what tomorrow may bring” or “Nobody knows when the light of life will fade…” Because life can make us bitter" or "better". As far as I am concerned any decision reached by the consensus of this community concerning this article would either impact or influence my profession positively or negatively.The reason why I said so, is like for records purpose and future benefits. Especially not to destroy the generation of visual arts in other to raise the level of their commitment to their goals and inspire visual artist's and others to peak performance. In Assume good faith, I've decided to make a key decision to contribute and help improved more article's on Wikipedia and also contribute more photos and video's to wikicommons as a volunteer Editor.This would be notable in the sight of God and Men by the mercy and grace of God.Olusola David, Ayibiowu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Comment

I apologize Interpretation of Wisdom/Sandbox is not a self promotional Article as my name his not written anywhere in it but the comment made for voting has been removed Note: It was just a test has I was using it for practice to see how I can improved in some areas because as a new user to know how it works and it's policy. Not Sockpuppet and not for self-promotional Article as being said by justeditingtoday,in Sockpuppet Investigation but for contributing to the already existing Article's on Wikipedia Assume good faithOlusola David, Ayibiowu (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:COI issues not withstanding, zero evidence from third-party sources of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication of notability, and a search by myself has found nothing that would make this person notable. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Aiu Servan-Schreiber[edit]

David Aiu Servan-Schreiber (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:ANYBIO for lack of independent sources. - MrX 13:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article written by subject of article WP:COI . Fails notability requirements WP:BIO, upon checking news, newspapers, google search, etc. all that comes up is his website. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 5 February 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  13:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moran Mano[edit]

Moran Mano (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)

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)).

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. The only other sources I could find were passing mentions in a couple of Jerusalem Post articles. Jbh^Talk 13:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Jbh^Talk 13:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP WP:DIPLOMAT Tomwiki07 (talk) 12:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC) — Tomwiki07 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• KEEP Comment enough coverage on the topic, further reference can be found in Israeli websites. Moran Mano is the youngest generation of Honorary Consuls (as published in Jerusalem post) and therefore, it is unique to mention. The article doesn't promote Moran Mano personally and its business activities, but mainly important for the community who are looking for the Honorary Consul of the Republic of Moldova to the State of Israel and have would like to study about him further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwiki07 (talk • contribs)

  Struck duplicate !vote, replaced with Comment. Jbh ^Talk 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP WP:DIPLOMAT and in community interest 15:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.53.190.75 (talk) — 2.53.190.75 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• KEEP the family is well known in Israel, and a person with Honorary consular rank should be listed Doritos 15:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1mm1 (talk • contribs) — 1mm1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
•  Checkuser note: Tomwiki07 is a  Confirmed sock of 1mm1. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1mm1.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as clear advertising alone with the clear accompanied influences of multi-accounts. SwisterTwister talk 22:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have struck out the comments of the sockpuppets above. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable. Most of the article isn't even about him.Glendoremus (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable businessman. VP of corporation with almost no proper sources in Hebrew as well. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. No policy-based reason for deletion. (non-admin closure) Exemplo347 (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neath Port Talbot College[edit]

Neath Port Talbot 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)

Coleg Powys (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 organization is no longer in existence following a merger and is displaying incorrect information on Google which is causing us an issue NPTCGroup (talk) 12:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I understand where Google is an issue for you as the organization, but we have encyclopedic notability guidelines that probably find these former degree-granting institutions notable. Merging it into NPTC Group might be an option, but that would also require the merger of Coleg Powys (which is also up for AfD for the same reason and whose nomination I have consolidated into this one for your convenience). Someone more familiar with Google's display of Wikipedia articles may be helpful here. Raymie (t • c) 18:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For examples of other standalone articles we have on educational institutions that have been merged, see Cincinnati Conservatory of Music and Rutersville College. Raymie (t • c) 18:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Raymie. Even as a defunct scholl it is notable for its merge history as a higher education establishment. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable topic. The institution's feelings about it are, as usual, irrelevant. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a defunct institution is still notable. Lepricavark (talk) 02:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable WP:GNG and WP:EDU.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 23:47, 7 February 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  12:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Twice as Nice[edit]

Twice as Nice (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:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No regular source cited to prove significance for artist or group. DBrown SPS (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. 66.189.232.210 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have inserted citations to support WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. (Haydon.h. (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydon.h. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The references in this article do not provide the Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that Wikipedia's GNG demands. You can't inherit notability - a person does not become famous because they work with a famous person, for example. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Exemplo347. This looks like an attempt to establish notability by association. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what citations you are looking for - included are citations on Lewis Hughes and Nick Audino, two members of the company who have a long series of production credits: http://www.allmusic.com/artist/lewis-hughes-mn0002946347, http://www.allmusic.com/artist/nick-audino-mn0002946350. I don't know what you are looking for. To have a wikipedia article you suddenly need a magazine article written about you? This is ridiculous. They are grammy nominated and have produced multiple top 10 singles. By this logic every single Music Producer should have their article deleted from wikipedia. (Haydon.h. (talk) 00:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete per nom. The enormous number of refs does not compensate for the lack of notability that they confer (or do not confer) on the article subject. The fact that individuals in the organisation have acheieved much in their lives does not constitute notability for the organisation itself. This reads like a promo piece.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   01:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Producer credits or Production credits cannot be given to companies, only to people. Credits to 'Twice As Nice' are given through the people Lewis Hughes, Nick Audino, Te Whiti Warbrick and Khaled Romain.

However, even if you do not accept the above, the company still achieves notable through the following criteria: Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles 6. "IS AN ENSEMBLE THAT CONTAINS TWO OR MORE INDEPENDENTLY NOTABLE MUSICIANS"

Criteria 6. is heavily substantiated throughout the entire wikipedia article.

Furthermore, as references throughout the article they also meet the following requirements: 1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works... 2. Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country 8. Has won or been nominated for a major music award such as a Grammy...

The article clearly contains citations pertaining to the above. (Haydon.h. (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Please also note the following notability criteria for composers and lyricists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists 1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. I fail to see how this is not easily met by, for example, Twice as Nice's work on the song 'Needed Me'. We find this in the article with reference [7] http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/a-look-at-the-production-credits-for-rihannas-anti-album That source is from a major independent website, which credits 'Twice As Nice' as "producers", "composers" and "lyricists" on the track 'Needed Me', which was a 4xplatinum track and one of the most notable tracks of 2016. This information is referenced in the very first paragraph of the article, and clearly meets the above 'notability' standards.(Haydon.h. (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

That source states that people from Twice as Nice were co-producers or co-writers, along with other people - at no point does it discuss Twice as Nice in any depth. To quote from WP:INHERITORG - "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see why that is relevant. Wikipedia criteria does not state any "depth". For you to insist that "depth" is required for notability is incorrect and is not a feature of any notability criteria for composers and lyricists. Notability can be achieved through, and I quote, "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", ie. it merely states that parties must be "credited". That is EXACTLY what that source does. It "credits" the group 'Twice As Nice' for writing a "notable composition", in this case a song which is certified 4x platinum. Regardless of whether or not you find them notable in regards to wether or not "reliable independent sources" have discussed them, they are "notable", as per wikipedia article criteria on composers and lyricists, as they have clearly been credited "for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." Multiple sources - all independent - cited in the very first paragraph, credit the group 'Twice As Nice' for their production work on notable compositions. (Haydon.h. (talk) 09:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

You may have missed my post above, where I quoted directly from the General Notability Guideline - "Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources" - that's where the requirement for depth comes from. You really should read these links that people keep providing for you. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your post extremely patronising. The music group 'Twice As Nice' are a music group, and not only meet the criteria for a musical ensemble, but for composers and lyricists. Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ensemble. I suspect you are imagining the group 'Twice As Nice' as a corporation, when they are in fact, a music group. My question to you is why does it matter if you perceive them to fail 'general notability' guidelines when they easily pass the notability guidelines for musicians under Composition and Lyricism? From where I sit, it seems as though you are failing them for not reaching a notability criteria that they are not trying to reach. The group 'Twice As Nice' achieve notability through being a music group and through that criteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists), not through being a corporation - nowhere has it been stated that they are a corporation. Perhaps instead of writing a patronising response you might respond to the case I've put forth, and demonstrate to me how they fail notability for musicians, irregardless of 'general notability' - or at least point me in the direction as to where it says they must meet a notability criteria outside of the category they fall under. It seems to me this is the equivalent of failing John Lennon, a notable musician (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon) on the grounds of him not meeting the notability criteria of a sportsperson. (Haydon.h. (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The General Notability Guideline, if you read it, clearly states that it applies to every article. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider what you mean by 'depth', as per guidelines presented on the notability guidelines - "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage". I would implore you to use common sense. This is a group that has been nominated for multiple grammy awards and have produced multiple top 10 singles. It is industry standard to credit individuals, as companies cannot be credited for production, composition, or lyric writing. It seems that you are arguing that they don't achieve notability through 'depth', but depth is an arbitrary term - I don't understand how depth is not achieved through production, composition and lyricism credits on hundreds of songs. This is a grammy nominated group we are talking about, who are RIAA, ARIA, FIMI, BPI certified musicians - in short, they are notable by any measure. Please use WP:Common Sense here. They achieve notability through their credits for writing hundreds of songs, as referenced in the article. (Haydon.h. (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The Group weren't nominated. The individual people were nominated. That's what you're not getting, and it's a vital thing for you to understand - for Wikipedia's purposes, Notability is never inherited. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is because, as I explained, in this industry performer names or companies are not credited for these kinds of credits. The songwriter is never credited by their artist name, and only credited by the name of their person. Even so, I would point to the following citations which support the group Twice As Nice as notable which arbitrarily do not provide enough 'depth' for you, even though wikipedia clearly states that "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage".

-http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/watch-lil-wayne-skate-it-off-in-new-video-20160616

-http://www.complex.com/music/2016/01/a-look-at-the-production-credits-for-rihannas-anti-album

-https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/summer-in-the-winter/id1067482417

-https://www.axs.com/listen-ariana-grande-gets-her-life-in-uplifting-dance-cut-be-alright-79211.

These are sources referencing the group by name from major independent websites. Can I ask what your issue is with these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haydon.h. (talk • contribs) 11:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC) My apologies forgot to sign this. (Haydon.h. (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Note I'm not going to go round and round in circles with an editor who clearly has an undeclared Conflict of Interest. I've made my policy-based arguments and they haven't been countered by the cherry-picked quotes from guidelines or by the belligerent wikilawyering. As I've already said - "The references in this article do not provide the Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that Wikipedia's GNG demands. You can't inherit notability - a person does not become famous because they work with a famous person, for example." Exemplo347 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The critical information I am reading on WP:ORG is that "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose, although people gathered for more specific purposes may be governed by more specific guidelines. For example, people gathered together for the purpose of making music are covered by WP:MUSIC." You have told me that all articles need to meet the general notability standards as well as the subject-specific notability standards - yet that is blatantly untrue. Reading the WP:Notability you can see in the very first paragraph it clearly says the opposite of this - it states that articles meet "either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" - key words being 'either' and 'or'. As I have demonstrated it meets the subject-specific guidelines for WP:Music. (Haydon.h. (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ylva Publishing[edit]

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

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

The concept is a lovely and strong idea, and I wish all the best to this publisher and its authors. Nevertheless, it appears to fail the WP:GNG, WP:CORDEPTH tests for inclusion as an article in the English language Wikipedia. I also note that there is no corresponding article on the German language Wikipedia. Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If there were a German Wikipedia article, it wouldn't use the English title with "Publishing," surely. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - blatant G11 advert. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I respectfully disagree that the article is blatant advertising but I think this publisher is too new for an article and that there aren't many appropriate reliable sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing here to assert notability, and the references are devoid of reliable secondary sources. Reference one is to a blog, reference two is a self reference, reference three is a self reference, reference four is meaningless as sponsoring some other entity doesn't make you famous. There's no claim to fame in the article other than existing and publishing 150 books, none of which are claimed to be significant. If there were enough such books, then maybe. But, there's nothing here. We are not a business directory. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:03, 9 February 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  11:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Andreoff Evans[edit]

David Andreoff Evans (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 couldn't establish that he meets WP:NOTABILITY. He seems to have had some success, but not enough. Boleyn (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The society fellowship may be enough for WP:PROF#C3., although it is not a society I have heard of. And his common name makes it very difficult to search for his publications, but I found five with over 100 citations in Google scholar, likely good enough for #C1. They are:

• 203 for "Conversation as planned behavior"
• 184 for "Noun-phrase analysis in unrestricted text for information retrieval"
• 171 for "Toward a medical-concept representation language"
• 117 for "A statistical approach to automatic OCR error correction in context"
• 105 for "Coupling niche browsers and affect analysis for an opinion mining application"

—David Eppstein (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- enough hits in Google books to suggest notability: link. Those who specialise in computational linguistics are far and few between, so his role suggests notability: David A. Evans, Professor of Linguistics and Computer Science and Director of the Laboratory for Computational Linguistics (that was back in 1995). K.e.coffman (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree on the weak keep. Although the article does need work. W Nowicki (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Withdraw nomination per consensus above, Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 5 February 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  12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Vincent Doyle[edit]

Michael Vincent Doyle (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 couldn't verify that he meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, and I couldn't find reviews of his books to convince me of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I could not find any sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Das[edit]

Avinash Das (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 person does not pass BASIC GNG. FITINDIA (talk) 10:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as sourced by only announcements and mentions with none of it substantiating an article. SwisterTwister talk 01:17, 5 February 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  12:52, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas toad[edit]

Christmas toad (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 non-notable orphan stub without any other sources than a photograph (now a dead link, but an archived copy is available). The scientific name is not included in the Amphibian Species of the World, the most comprehensive online database of scientific names for amphibians, nor in the AmphibiaWeb, another major amphibian site. My understanding is that "Christmas toad" is a name that is sometimes used in the pet trade, but I am unable to link it to any recognized species. Micromesistius (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It turns out that the species is actually Rhinella spinulosa (or Bufo spinulosus). The individual in the photograph is apparently a juvenile (you can see more photographs at this source). Not being able to find B. espinuloso in any database may be explained by the original specific epithet in the original source I may have found it somehow having become Hispanized. "Christmas toad" might indeed be some pet store name given to these juvenile individuals that somehow found itself on whatever obscure source I've gotten the information about this animal from, along with the species name "Bufo espinuloso." Giant Blue Anteater (talk) 22:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]